THE ROLE OF “RESOURCE CONTROL” AND RESTRUCTURING IN THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF NIGERIA
by
Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa B. Sc (HONS) M. Sc Zoology (Applied Entomology)
Director Research, Institute for Contemporary Research (ICR) Kano and General Editor Weekly Pyramid The Magazine
(ibrahimado@hotmail.com)
http://www.kanoonline.com/ibrahimado/
Kano, Nigeria
© 2002

“Resource control” in this paper simply means the attempt by some politicians of some constituent units of the Nigerian Federation to control the revenue of the federation derived by the federal government in their states. While restructuring means reducing the powers of the federal government by increasing the powers of the federating units, in other words it means reversion to the arrangement of the first republic in a modified form with more regions (in this case six or more).

The struggle for political power in Nigeria is for most of the time between the North dominated by Muslims and the Southwest dominated by Yoruba Christians whose extremists form the core of Afenifere. Both groups are suffering from feelings of insecurity. The North dominated by indolent leaders feel insecure because they are landlocked and they lack independent ideas of improving the lives of their teeming poverty stricken peasants. The Southwest on the other hand is a deeply divided community with Muslims and Christians in most families therefore their leaders felt they could only survive as a united entity by promoting tribalism and projecting the “Hausa-Fulani” as their enemies

Both groups have tried separately to reach out to other groups seeking for alliance to out maneuver each other. At the same time they skillfully try not to rock the Nigerian boat because they are the major beneficiaries. The failure of their partners to realize this fact has led those alliance partners to take extreme positions, which most of the time culminated in disasters such as Biafra. The Ibo intelligentsia dominated by individuals suffering from civilization inferiority complex (Sulaiman 1986: 63) could not read between the lines that the North and Southwest have more in common with each other than with them, rushed into the trap believing that the Southwest will also secede from Nigeria. Two things readily come to mind. One, economically the Ibo and the Yoruba were and are still competitors. Both have more western trained manpower than the North. Therefore when the Ibo left the Yoruba took their positions in the civil services and organized private sector. Two, during the Biafran crisis out of desperation the Ibo tried to use the religious card but this failed because Islam was not a minority religion in the Southwest (Osaghae 1998: 67), how could the enlightened Muslim majority Yoruba back Christian Ibo against the predominantly Muslim North? Therefore the Ibo strategy backfired and the Yoruba with the active support of their high chief got what they wanted which was control of the Nigerian economy.

The Afenifere by portraying itself as a supporter of “true” federalism and resource control has succeeded in luring the inhabitants of the Niger Delta into assuming that the Southwest is sufficient and therefore it does not need their resources unlike the impoverished North. This was the same strategy the Afenifere used to get the Ibo. The truth is that the Southwest is as needy as all other parts of Nigeria if not even more. The Nigerian economy is import dependant and where are the most active ports located? All are located in Lagos and the major beneficiaries are the Yoruba. The other day Lagos “Chicago” governor was claiming that the ports belong to the Yoruba and that all over the world ports belong to local governments. Who built the Apapa and Tin Can Island ports was it Apapa local government or Lagos State government or the Federal Government of Nigeria?

Governors of the Niger Delta and their intellectuals should ponder a bit and ask themselves why is that everybody goes to Lagos including the “Hausa-Fulani” who are most despised by the Afenifere and Ohana Eze? The simple answer is that it is a combination of history and the current Nigerian situation that made this possible. Since the colonial period Lagos became the entrepot of the Nigerian hinterland and the Yoruba have remained the greatest beneficiaries of this development. The Afenifere think tank know better than I do that they will never maintain that monopoly if Nigeria disintegrates. This is because prior to the colonial rule Sokoto Caliphate, which was the most prosperous polity in tropical Africa was trading more with areas in Ghana, which will also had access to the sea than with bilad yariba (Yoruba land). But it must be acknowledged that the Caliphate leaders wanted to extend their influence to bilad yariba for an alternative access to the sea and it was one of the reasons for conflict with Alafinate of Oyo. The other more important reason was that the Alafinate of Oyo was dealing in Muslim slaves, an action considered among the grievous crimes (Fisher 1985). The Alafinate was obliterated and it had to shift its capital further south. The colonial rule terminated Hausa land (Northern Nigerian) trade with Ghana areas and shifted it to Lagos.

It is surprising that the Niger Delta leaders cannot understand that the most important resource is human since that is the market of any product, which is the backbone of economics. They also have access to the sea because of the ports in located in their states, but they are making no efforts of cultivating the friendship of the hinterland traders by providing adequate security and other incentives. This is largely because of their reliance on revenue from “king oil”. Once they realize this fact, the Afenifere agenda will be reviewed. They should learn from Shaykh Rashid al-Makhtoum the architect of the economic transformation of the United Arab Emirates. He realized long time ago that oil revenue is a finite resource he therefore made Dubai a commercial hub in the gulf. And without oil, commercial activities especially distribution of finished products at discount rates will sustain UAE as banking is now contributing to the buoyancy of the Bahrain economy where oil was first drilled in the gulf, but whose oil resource has almost been exhausted.      

The Southwest with its concealed but deeply rooted internal division can never be a viable entity outside Nigeria. Without Nigeria the oppressed Muslim majority will struggle to assert its rights of self-identity now swept under the carpet because any agitator will be a ready prey of Afenifere blackmail. Since 1897 the Muslims of Southwestern Nigeria have been denied Shari’ah personal law  (Okunola 1993: 28) first by the colonialist and then by Yoruba Christians. This potential struggle for assertion of Muslim identity is real because no amount of tribal blackmail outside Nigeria can stop the highly educated and dedicated Yoruba Muslims from charting their destiny.

The colonialists and their successors wanted the Shari’ah and customary personal laws to be phased out gradually but whenever possible they favored the customary law over Shari’ah. They used the courts for this strategy by employing the validity test made up of incompatibility and repugnancy clauses. In 1943 the Kano Chief Alkali Court ruled that Mary Baikie could not inherit her father who was a Muslim. This was based on a Hadith injunction, which says: “Neither does a Muslim inherit a non-believer nor does a non-believer inherit a Muslim”. Mary appealed and the appellate court ruled that the provision of Islamic law that barred her from inheriting her father was “repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience”. This was despite the fact that the provision of Islamic law did not say that Muslims could inherit non-Muslims. But the shocking example of double standard came almost twenty years later in the case of Dawud vs. Danmole (1962). In this case nine male and four female children survived the deceased person and the estate was shared according to Yoruba custom of “Idi Igi”. According to this custom the estate of a deceased is “shared equally between the wives he left so that a child who has no mother in the house will not get any share”. Dawud went up to the Privy Council  the highest appeal court to challenge this but he was not successful. “All the courts decided that since that was their custom, it has to be complied with. In other words it was not repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience” (Mahmud 1988: 17). Dawud`s fault was that he challenged a custom based on traditional religion because he was not an adherent of that religion while Mary’s asset was that she challenged Islam, a rival of the Western Christian Civilization- hence his failure and her success. It was as usual a case of “different strokes for different folks”.

In the case of Bangbose Vs Daniel  (1952) 14W.A. CA III on (1955) AC 107.), the deceased left children by different ladies; some he married under customary law and the other under the Marriage Act, according to this Act, the estate belongs to the children born by the marriage conducted under the Marriage Act, “When the case reached the privy council, it was ruled that” the estate should “be shared according to native law and custom so that the children from the customary marriage could inherit”. In this case the customary law failed the "validity test" based on its incompatibility with received English law  but it was not upheld to allow non-Muslims to inherit. Whereas in the case of Dawud Vs Danmole the customary law failed the validity test but it was upheld because the appellant was not a non-Muslim. The courts have no excuse because both the cases of Mary Baikie and Bangbose vs. Daniel were before Dawud Vs Danmole. In the case of Yinusa Vs Adesubokun the High Court of Northern Nigeria had ruled that the will in contention could not be relied upon “because  the deceased being a Moslem, was not allowed by Islamic law to make a will in favour of an heir more so when all the rest of the heirs were Moslems” (Mahmud 1988: 20). One of the parties appealed and the Supreme Court  in 1970 ten years after independence nullified the judgment of the High Court because it was contrary to the ENGLISH WILLS ACT of 1837. The Supreme Court used the incompatibility clause of the validity test. What a humiliation! Thus it implied that the phrase “law for the time being in force” is the English Law. Therefore "it has been rightly" observed "that such an interpretation if strictly followed would result in the virtual abolition  of Islamic and customary laws in this country" (Tabi’u 1986: 39). The Supreme Court refused to draw inspiration from the earlier case of Bangbose Vs Daniel in which the customary law was incompatible with the received English law (the Marriage Act) so that the Muslims could be allowed to inherit their father just as the followers of customary law were allowed to inherit in Bangbose Vs Daniel. The Yoruba Muslims (in Yinusa Vs Adesubokun) were thus denied because they were Muslims.

The colonialists and their successors have denied Yoruba Muslims their rights to self-identity as indicated above and have suppressed all peaceful and genuine agitations as observed by a former Chief Justice of the Federation below:

“Although millions of Muslims in Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and Lagos States contract marriages in accordance with Shari’a, there are no Shari’a Courts in these states to adjudicate on any question of Islamic personal law regarding such marriages, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such marriage or relating to family relationship or guardianship of an infant. The same applies to any question of Islamic personal law regarding a Wakf, gift, will or succession, where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a Muslim. All these matters, which are all matters for Shari’a, are decided in the Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and parts of Lagos State by Customary Courts where the judges are not learned in Shari’a.

It is for these foregoing reasons that the advocates for the establishment of Shari’a courts in these states are vigorous in their campaign. In concluding, I may emphasize the fact that the demand for the Shari’a courts is only to satisfy the need of the Muslim communities. It will not affect any other person who is not a Muslim” (Okunola 1993: 32).

Most of the viable Muslim organizations in Nigeria originated from the Southwest. For example the Muslim Students Society (MSS), the most prominent Muslim youth organization in Nigeria was founded in 1954 with Adullatif Adegbite as the first president (he is now the Secretary-General, Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs), the Nationall Council of Muslim Youth Organizations (NACOMYO) founded and still led by Ishaq Kunle Sanni, Federation of Muslim Women Organizations (FOMWAN) the umbrella body of Muslim women of Nigeria led by Alhaja Lateefat Okunnu. The first book on the current Shari’ah agitation came from the Southwest and Professor Yasir Anjola Quadri (Quadri 1999) wrote it, which is sympathetic to the agitation, the professor has written more papers than any northern professor of Islamic studies. Another Southwest Muslim writer Dr. Ishaq Akinola also wrote about the Shari’ah in year 2001. Whereas in Northern Nigeria the first pamphlet on the Shari’ah was by Zaria scholars (Mohammed, A. S. et al 2000) and it portrayed the agitators as manipulators of religion it was followed by a book written by Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa (2000). Such committed and enlightened Yoruba Muslims cannot be oppressed outside Nigeria when the only cleavage will then be religion and not tribe any longer. The Afenifere academicians know this better than I do hence the vogue of agitating for restructuring and true federalism. But by pushing this too far they may mislead their fellow adventurers into taking irrational decisions as they did before which led to the catastrophic civil war.

Indolent northern leaders, who allowed power to be taken away from them by the Afenifere led vanguard, also have no future outside Nigeria. They have allowed propaganda by their adversaries to expose them. They have no independent ideas of developing the economy of their well-endured region largely because they surround themselves with the same circle of dissipated and out dated intellectuals divided into “progressives” and “conservatives”.

Since they were exposed by propagandist the Northern elites have no way of restoring their dignity except by stimulating economic growth in such a way that it will raise the purchasing power of their poor people. Without an economic base even if political power comes back to them they cannot maintain it. And they will be under the risk of being derailed by propaganda and since majority of their people are impoverished they cannot participate in any subsequent propaganda war. It is possible to revive the economy of the North as long as the elites summon the will. As explained below the North was in a good position before oil.

For Nigeria to remain strong and united Northern Nigeria must reassess its economic position in the federation especially with the clamor for “resource control” by the Southern States. According to The Economist of London one of the patrons of Southern Nigerian intelligentsia, Nigeria’s oil revenue is $50 million per day which will translate to about 50 cents per person per day approximately N2000 per person per month (See The Economist 2000: 16). Most Nigerians spend more than this amount per month, so where does the balance come from? Certainly oil is a major source of revenue for the government but it is obviously not the only component of Nigeria’s GDP. During the greatest crisis that threatened Nigeria’s survival it was not the major contributor as could be observed in table 1, for example from 1967 to 1971 it contributed less than 26% of the Federal Revenue per annum. With what resources was oil production developed?

In 1970 “the highest level of the civil service, including the government’s senior staff, received the equivalent of US$4147 to US$9,360” (Nelson et al. 1972: 95). As illustrated in table 1, oil contributed less than 26% of the federal revenue, and then with what revenue were the federal workers paid comparatively higher wages than most of the workers of today? Northern elites may be living in a fool’s paradise like the ostrich if they ever believe that “resource control” is meaningless in the 21^st century. NO! It is becoming real every day that passes and this will certainly pose greater danger to peaceful coexistence of the federation if it is not resolved democratically. The “oil producing areas” have been clamoring for more share of the revenue accruing from the sale of crude oil and they always got more, from less than 5% to 13% and now they are still asking for more even though some of them whose populations are less than that of Kano State got more than its share. They have argued passionately that in terms of social development based on spill over benefits other areas have gained more statistically than the “oil producing areas”. One writer has also employed ecclesiastical (Islamic and Christian) views of systems theory to explain the need to care for the “mineral producing areas” through socially responsible behavior that balances economic interest with human ecology (Ikein 1991: 233). The “oil producing areas” will never give up and they will continue to ask for more like Oliver Twist, the northern states will get poorer unless the elites wake up and stimulate productivity in the agricultural sector by paying more attention to agricultural extension and cooperative services (Onucheyo 1998: 123).

It was certainly with the resources and goodwill of all other Nigerian regions and especially the northern region that oil exploration and exploitation were financed. It must not be forgotten that the Northern Nigeria being the largest in population as the figures (in table 4) have shown was undoubtedly the largest contributor of revenue to the Federal Government (as indicated in table 5). According some non-northern observers:

“In the early 1970s agriculture still contributed about half of the national income and provided employment for 70 or 80 percent of the labor force (see ch. 12, Character and Structure of the Economy). Agricultural commodities provided 48 to 56 percent of export income and were an important source of public revenue through the taxation of export crops, the profits of the marketing boards, the cattle tax, and more general taxes. The country’s past financial needs and foreign exchange requirements were met almost entirely by peasant farmers, whose earnings financed the development of infrastructure, built schools and hospitals, and supplied capital for new industry. Since the 1960’s, however, petroleum earnings have provided a growing contribution to supplement the financial resources of agriculture” (Nelson et al 1972: 315).

It must also be acknowledged that from the mid 1950s the north supported the principle of derivation as reported below:

“At first, the postwar development surge promised changes on a planned basis throughout the colony. Income from taxes, excise, and exports from richer areas was used to promote development wherever the needs were most obvious. Then, as Nigeria awakened politically, each Region demanded more control over the uses of its resources and income, and planning on the basis of developmental needs gave way to the principle of “derivation”-that money be allotted to each Region according to its ability to produce revenues. This hindered development in the poorer East and left more resources for richer West and North. By 1954 the principle of “derivation”-was receiving greater emphasis than were the requisites of “need”. One of the greatest difficulties of this policy was that the growing demand by Ibos for education produced a legion of clerks, teachers, and semiskilled who were unemployed within their own poorer region. Spurred by land scarcity in Iboland, Ibo emigration toward the North, West, and Lagos grew”  (Ostheimer 1973: 33).

Table 5 is a confirmation of the above observations by non-Northern Nigerian writers although we are now witnessing attempts by the southern propagandist to revise history.

The supporters of the current clamor for resource control have argued that the North had supported derivation as independence approached because it was then favorable to its aspiration but now it is against it because it is no longer favorable. The situations are different. The central government during colonial rule was spending more on education in the south than in north (see table 5), this was then a threat to survival of the country as the north lacked the manpower to run an efficient government and there was the fear that the people will loose everything because there was growing emphasis on paper qualification. And moreover the revenue of that period was mostly from poll tax and other forms of direct taxation. Will it have been fair to tax somebody and then deprive him of facilities by using the tax in other areas as shown in table 5?  On the other hand there is little or no effort on the part of the inhabitants of “the oil producing areas” in the production of the oil, which is the source of the revenue they are claiming to be their own. The amount allocated to their states in comparison to others (see table 2) is enough to cater for their services and the Niger Delta Commission’s allocation could also serve as a supplement. The ecological fund and contributions from oil companies should be properly utilized in environmental protection in the over all interest of the Niger Delta in particular and Nigeria in general.

Revisionists have continued to fuel the propaganda that the British amalgamated the North and South because of the poor revenue base of the North but this is one of the most outrageous pieces of misinformation. A non-northern writer has observed that:

“For four decades after the creation of Nigeria in 1914, no net investments were made by Britain. All roads, railway, educational, and administrative developments had to be financed from local taxation. Ironically, British power was most directly applied in eastern Nigeria, which was soon providing the weakest public services because of its poor tax base. In the northern cities where a strong emirate system had no trouble taxing the people, Nigeria’s best hospitals, roads, and other public developments were built” (Ostheimer 1973: 32).

It must be emphasized that the above explanation is also a prove that other Nigerians contributed the resources and good will for the exploration and exploitation of the oil resources since most of the Niger Delta was then part of “this poorer region”. But as a sign of greed they now want to claim all the oil revenue as their exclusive right. This was not all in fact the north subsidized the south for example in 1943 as illustrated in table 5. Despite its lion share contribution to the federal revenue, the North was a deprived region because such revenue was used in developing the other regions providing infrastructure to facilitate exportation of raw materials. For example in the same year the central government spent least on education in the North compared to the other regions (see as table 5).

The contribution of the northern peasants to revenue generation as illustrated in tables 1 and 5 as well as in Nelson et al 1972: 315 above is rendered to naught by Afenifere and their supporters through their well-orchestrated propaganda, which thrives on ignorance.  The Afenifere has mobilized the Southern minorities of the Niger Delta to claim that they should be allowed to control “their oil resources”. The Afenifere leaders believe that by so doing they will get at the northern leaders to gain more concessions to keep their grip on power. Therefore they initiated the process of deceiving the southern minorities as they had earlier deceived the Ibos who relied on the solidarity of the Western Region during their traumatic Biafran adventure (Osaghae 1991: 247). This is the main agenda of the Afenifere in the southern governors conference. They have branded all manners of theories on true federalism. Many have cited the US, where they claim that states control their resources. This is the silliest claim because the two countries have different histories. In the US the states were sovereign entities before they ceded their powers to the Federal Government, whereas in Nigeria, these states never existed as sovereign entities, they were the creation of the Federal Government and even the earlier regions were never at any time sovereign entities, they were creations of the British.

What is the solution for this struggle for Nigeria’s resources? As stated earlier Afenifere has succeeded in deceiving other Nigerians that its “people” are only interested in equity and are not interested in the resources of “others”. Therefore the Afenifere and their followers have intensified their call for sovereign national conference which some now refer to as national conference to resolve this crisis. They have portrayed the North’s refusal to accept this call as an indication that it is the only beneficiary of the status quo. The Afenifere chiefs are aware that despite its current weakness the North will never be pushed into taking a foolish decision that will destroy the whole to build the parts (see also Odinzu 2001 http://www.gamji.com/NEWS741.htm). Even if they are now economically weak the northerners have a longer history of statehood spanning over one thousand years from which they could draw inspiration. Therefore they should not toy with the destiny of millions of African people. The Afenifere are very informed of this so they keep on agitating for the conference to remain relevant.

Already almost everybody knows the agenda of the conference, which is to restructure the country by giving more powers to the federating units and reducing the powers of the central government. The other important item on the agenda of the agitators is that revenue allocation should be based principally on the principle of derivation. For any one to gamble he must have a safe way out. The Afenifere have charted their way out if the North foolishly accepts the conference. They will maintain their control of the economy since they have the ports and they will extend their derivation principle to include custom duties and VAT. Industries will not be viable in the North without railway, which has virtually been killed with the active connivance of rapacious northern elites. Railway is the cheapest means of transportation of raw materials and finished products. The North being far from the sea can neither import nor export competitively and the Southwest will maintain the edge. Also with a restructured Nigeria, Yoruba Muslims will be contained since the North is still around if they make any agitation they will easily be branded as agents of the North. With this illusion, the Afenifere chiefs think that the Southwest will be safe. But this may not work smoothly because as they push, others will also push and with strong federating units there is the tendency of repeating the scenario that led to the civil war. This is because the arrangement they are advocating is confederal in nature instead of the current qausifederal arrangement. Each of this arrangements has its advantages and disadvantages as observed below:

If a federalism is centralized, then the ruler(s) of the federation have and are understood to have greater influence over what happens in the society as a whole than do all the rulers of the subordinate governments. And, having influence, they tend to acquire more. Thus, an identifying feature of centralized federalism is the tendency, as time passes, for the rulers of the federation to overawe the rulers of the constituent governments. Conversely, if a federalism is initially peripheralized, the rulers of the subordinate governments tend to acquire more; and thus an identifying feature of peripheralized federalism is the tendency, eventually, for the rulers of constituent governments to overawe the ruler(s) of the federation. (Riker 1964: 7)

So from the above it is clear what each group wants for Nigeria. Those clamoring for restructuring are eventually planning for the break-up of the country because certainly that will be the ultimate end of the confederation. Nigerians have experienced this before. Whereas those who believe in a strong central government are firmly committed to the existence of truly federal and united Nigeria.

The issue of revenue allocation based on derivation is only a hoax as we can observe from tables below. The “oil producing areas” receive more revenue than the “non-oil producing areas” (table 2) therefore the role of population is not as significant as their propaganda has portrayed. For example from the table Kano State, which has 6.52% of the Nigerian population received only 4.05% while Delta State with 2.91% of the population received 6.22% of the total revenue allocated to states and local governments including VAT (table 3). Bayelsa State with 1.26% of the Nigerian population received 3.07% of the revenue allocated. So what do these states want? They want all the oil revenue to be allocated to them and then they will give the FG some little amount and give the other states some little amount. All the sweat of the peasants exploited and taxed during the colonial rule to develop southern Nigeria (as shown in tables 1 and 5 below) to the detriment of the north in pursuit of the divide and rule policy of the British is therefore worthless to this group of politicians and their intellectual cohorts. The population figures and the tax returns as shown below have always proved that the north is more populated than the south (tables 4 and 5). The blood of those who fought the civil war is also worthless to these politicians. These “oil-producing states” or the South-South states are swimming in money, they received 24.91% of the total revenue allocated to states and local governments which is far more than the constitutional 13% minimum with their 15.04% population compared to the “non-oil producing states” for example the North Western states that received 19.67% of the total revenue allocated to states and local governments with higher population which is 25.74% of the Nigerian total (table 2). But we must note that the only way for their politicians to divert public attention from this huge sum allocated to them is to continue to clamor for “resource control”.

There is no doubt that the restructuring and resource control propagandists are very eloquent and they have their way because of the powerful machinery behind them. They have conveniently used international NGOs through which they manufacture consent for their views using very unscientific methods pretending to be social scientists  (Jason 2001: 27). Why are these international NGOs so interested in these issues when there are political parties that will converse for election on platforms and win? The simple reason is that such studies are used for harassing the politicians. Luckily President Obasanjo, who accepted Biafran surrender is yet to succumb to this harassment although the Patriots a southern Christian organization of legal luminaries has mounted a great pressure for the convocation of a national conference. President Obasanjo should resist the temptation of being the first African Gorbachev. These armchair politicians in the so-called “civil society” organizations have no solid grass root base therefore he should ignore them and if they are worth anything they should contest the next election and the world will know what they are. It is common knowledge that they cannot survive without external finance and support (Carothers 1999: 20).

Many northern intellectuals have written papers that demonstrated the managerial incapacity of northern politicians who have not judiciously used the resources allocated to them. This is understandable. But as we have shown above the southern politicians are not better, they have received more and have not done much for their people and they keep on blaming others just like some of the inept and indolent northern politicians. Northern intellectuals should do better than merely criticizing politicians by suggesting practical ways of inducing productivity thereby increasing the purchasing power of their impoverished populace. The rhetoric that the north possesses sufficient natural resources is nothing because they are “fungible” commodities, which are worthless unless they get to the market.

The only way out for those who believe in peaceful coexistence and equity is to work together and establish governments that are just and democratic from the local to the federal levels. Luckily for the country majority of the Yoruba are peace loving and they do not belong to Afenifere the fascist organization or its terrorist wing the OPC. Two prominent Nigerians have drawn attention of the enlightened public to the dangers of tribal politics and its potential threat to democracy. Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman  commented thus:

“How can a true descendant of Oduduwa refuse to support the Egbe Omo Oduduwa  and its Action Group and other such organizations, if he is not a quisling of other tribes? He cannot. He has to be made to realise his treachery and recant or be punished. If there is a leader of the Yoruba, then all Yoruba, including President Obasanjo, have to accept his leadership or stand to be accused of treachery and insubordination to the Yoruba Fuhrer, in the person of Chief Abraham  Adesanya. Like all racist and ethnic politics, there is no room here for democratic freedom of conscience and association for the individual citizen. This type of politics is essentially fascist and is rooted in violence and the threat of violence” (Usman 1999:16).

Chief Bisi Akande, Governor of Osun State and a prominent member of the Yoruba political party, Alliance for Democracy (AD), also observed the fascist tendencies of some Afenifere  leaders and the threat of the organization to development of democratic culture when he made this statement: "Only four persons are running the organization. If you say they are wrong, they tell you, you have betrayed the cause of the Yoruba. But the truth is that they themselves have by their actions betrayed the people" (Thisday January 27^th 2000). This, no doubt, is a further vindication of Chief Obafemi Awolowo`s earlier fears, which he expressed on his own appropriation by the insular Yoruba irredentists. When the chief  was released from prison he was reluctant to accept the position of the tribal leader of the Yoruba because he may have realized his earlier mistake of pursuing a tribal agenda in a plural society. He acknowledged the dangers of appointing a tribal leader because:

“The leader is taken as given and infallible. It is the followership that must strive to justify their fitness to follow. Therefore even when the leader treats them as slaves or serfs, or palpably misleads them and even deceives them, the leader is adjudged faultless. In the estimation of the followers, it is they that must have given cause for the leader’s actions, which were in any case right. They must therefore improve their parts to deserve better treatment from the leader” (Awolowo 1985: 315).

Chief Abraham Adesanya, the Yoruba fascist leader confirmed the fascist tendency of their ethnic politics when he was asked about the response of Southern Muslims to the position of the “Patriots”, a Christian organization, according to Thisday he was reported to have said: “If you have a Yoruba man or Yoruba Muslim saying anything other than what we say, you must know that such a person is an hypocrite (sic)” (Thisday July 23^rd 2000). To these fascists, Yoruba Muslims and others have no right of freedom of conscience and association. They are saying Muslims should reject their religious obligation ordained by Allah and accept Afenifere’s injunctions.

  Those who believe in peaceful restructuring can support or sponsor candidates across the country who will hold up the idea at the assemblies and ensure a democratic resolution of all outstanding political issues. The insistence of armchair politicians that the present arrangement favors the “anti-restructuring” group is not acceptable. This is because these armchair politicians want the easy way out which is to use the media to pressurize the North and all those interested in peaceful resolution of all contending issues into accepting an undemocratic arrangement. This will in the long run be detrimental to democracy and peaceful co-existence not only in Nigeria but the whole West African region.

Table 1.            CONTRIBUTION OF OIL TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE, 1958-90

Table 2: Revenue Allocation to the Six Zones January to September 2001

(Source: Home Finance Department, Federal Ministry of Finance as published in Daily Trust November 19, 2001)

Table 3: Revenue allocation to six selected states January to September 2001

(Source: Home Finance Department, Federal Ministry of Finance as published in Daily Trust November 19, 2001)

Table 4: Population of Nigeria from 1911 to 1991

(Modified from Maja-Pearce 1999: 122-123)

Table 5: Revenue contribution to central government and its education expenditures in 1943

(Source: Abba 2000: 5)

REFERENCES

Abba, A. 2000 (ed) The Politics of Principles in Nigeria: The Example of NEPU  p. 5 Habib Raji Abdallah ‘Lagos is a Nigerian Town’ West African Pilot Tuesday September, 28 1948 pp. 2-3

Ado-Kurawa, I. (2000) Shari’ah and the Press in Nigeria: Islam versus Western Christian Civilization Kano.

Awolowo, O. (1985) Adventures in Power (Book I): My March Through Prison.

Carothers, T. (1999) ‘Civil Society’ in Foreign Policy 117

Fisher, H. J., (1985) 'A Muslim William Wilberforce? The Fulani jihad as anti-slavery  crusade: an enquiry into historical causes'. Islam in West Africa Seminar School of Oriental and African Studies  5th March 1985.

Ikein, A. A. (1991) The Impact of Oil on a Developing Country: The Case of Nigeria Ibadan.

Jason, P. (2001) ‘The case for dialogue’ New African December.

Mahmud, A. B. (1988) History of Sharia in Defunct Northern Nigeria Jos

Maja-Pearce, A. (1999) From Khaki to Agbada: A Handbook for the February, 1999 Elections in Nigeria Lagos.

Mohammed, A. S. et al. (2000) The Living Conditions of the Talakawa and the Shari’ah in Contemporary Nigeria Zaria.

Nelson, H. O. et al. 1972 Area Handbook for Nigeria Washington

Odinzu, O. (2001) ‘The Secessionist Confederalist and why they Must Fail’

Okunola, M. (1993) "The Relevance of Sharia to Nigeria" in Alkali N. et al (eds) Islam in Africa Conference proceedings Ibadan.

Onucheyo, E. (1998) Political Decisions in Nigerian Agricultural Industry Jos.

Osaghae E. O. (1991) ‘Ethnic Minorities and Federalism in Nigeria’ African Affairs vol. 90.

Osaghae, E. O. (1998) Cripple Giant: Nigeria Since Independence London

Ostheimer, J. M. (1973) Nigerian Politics New York

Quadri, Y. A. (1999) Shari’ah:  The Islamic Way of Life Ijebu-Ode.

Riker, W. H. (1964) Federalism: Origin, Operation, and Significance Boston as cited in Ostheimer op. cit. p. 30

Sulaiman, K. R. 1986 ‘The Shari’ah and the 1979 Constitution’ Rashid, S. K. (ed) Islamic Law in Nigeria (Applications and Teaching) Lagos where Nwabueze, B. Constitutionalism in the Emergent States was cited.

Tabi’u, M. (1986) ‘Constraints in Application of Islamic Law in Nigeria’ in Rashid, S. K. (ed) Islamic Law in Nigeria (Applications and Teaching) Lagos.

The Economist (2000): A survey of Nigeria January 15^th 2000

Usman, Y.B. (1999) ‘African peoples and politics in 21^st century (4)’ New Nigeria

Brought to you by Kano Online 2002