Indigene or Non Indigene

[mallamt]

I have just heard of the Zamfara state decision to refuse non indigenes admission in to public schools.  I do not have a copy of the Nigerian constitution and would like to as what does the constitution define as an indigene or non indigene of a state?  Do we have any such categorisation in the constitution as indigene and non indigene?

[alhaji_aminu]

Salam
Zamfara, as is Kano or Delta or Oyo are all parts of a federal republic named Nigeria.

Now in response to the indigeneship issue one needs look at 2 things first. That is:
          * Federal Character.
          * Federal Cabinet.

As we may  know, every head of state tries his best to appoint minsters from all states of the federation. Infact, the constitution specifically states, that such a person from the state shall be an indigene of that state.
The problem here is in the details. What is an indigene and who is an indigene of a state? I have yet to see anything in the constitution that explicitly defines indigeneship so it's now a matter for the courts to decide.

The federal character comission, for those who dont know, is a govt body charged with working out a formula for diversifying the federal civil service/govt offices based on states of origin (This should not a Quota sytem). It can, for example, prosecute a minister or a perm sec of a ministry if it shown that he has given more/most postions in the ministry to people from Kano.  What this does, in effect, is to say that, that guy who is an indigene of kano cannot have this job because so many other kano [ b]indigenes[/b] are represented in the ministry or parastatal.....

What one should take away from the examples above is that, the constitution does, in wording and spirit, recognize the issue of indigene ship as one with merit. That is, I can claim Kano State indigeneship whilst Olusegun Obasanjo cannot.  

Lastly, mallamt's argument can be seen as a mischievious ploy suggesting that Zamfara state's position vis-a-vis school fees for indigenes of that state is unconstitutional. The answer is, it is not and no amount of blackmail or intimadation, as witnessed by the barage of editorials and opinions on the lagos press shows, will make the govt in Zamfara serve their people creditably and prudently.

The govt of Zamfara is taking this step to ensure that resources earmarked for the education of it's people goes to it's people first and all other's later. That is what I would do and to hell with everyone who thinks negative of it.

That is my opinion.

tata

[mallamt]

myadudu
I must say I liked the first two paragraphs of your posting because you actually educated me, and thanks for the information.  All I was asking was the position of our constitution on the issue of indigene and non indigene after reading some article on the Zamfara case, because it just got me wondering about this indigene non indigene thing.  My question again flowing from your posting is on naturalised nigerians, can they be indigenes of a state? if they can not, then what is their naturalisation based on since they come from nowhere in the country infact they can only be considered as federal subjects(i am not even sure of this) or maybe indigenes of federal territory, does that not also raise a problem? Can a person staying in a state for a specified period of time be considered an indigene of that state irrespective of such persons state of origin?  Where or what state can decendants of naturalised citizens claim to come from? These questions I ask for discussion purposes and even get enlightened on the matter.  One thing is that I know people who originally come from kano state but are now seen and treated as indigenes of kaduna state and fill or use kaduna state qoutas and there are lots of people like that all over the country.  I just wanted to know and understand whether they are protected even by the constitution.

Lastly, mallamt's argument can be seen as a mischievious ploy suggesting that Zamfara state's position vis-a-vis school fees for indigenes of that state is unconstitutional. The answer is, it is not and no amount of blackmail or intimadation, as witnessed by the barage of editorials and opinions on the lagos press shows, will make the govt in Zamfara serve their people creditably and prudently.

Myadudu, I am not arguing with you or anybody so please stop being defensive, is it impossible to have a discussion with you?  Why can't a person ask a simple question without you seeing a third force? Going by your logic of always thinking there is an ulterior motive in questions I or other people ask, is it also right for others to think that there is an ulterior motive when zamfara state is raising the issue of indigene and non indigenes?  Please let us just discuss the issue with civility and even learn from the discussion.  The issue of indigene non indigene is not only a Zamafara thing it affects the whole country

[alhaji_aminu]

salam

mallamt i thank you for replying my post in exactly the manner i thought you would. That is: by cynical complements and, God knows what its called.....ahhh.... complaints. Yeah that's the word.... complaints.

You see, mallamt, no thought exists without reason. Perverted thoughts, mischievious thought, sinfull thoughts you name it. I am saying this because your comments about Zamfara weren't about indigeneship per se. You are bringing up these questions directly in relation with what Soyinka said in Edo. (remeber your reply to that post spurred this one).

All your question boils down to is this: Zamfara's policy of allocating more resources to those considered indigenes of Zamfara, by the Zamfara state govt, is unconstitutional. On this analysis of the situation I have no doubt.

As to why I am being overly defensive, the answer is simple. Why shouldn't I be? Isn't it said that the best defense is the best offense?
I am on the offensive because it is my desire to make it clear, based on my status as a Muslim, that the actions taken by Zamfara or Kano, with good intentions, needs to be hammered down the throats of antagonists and critics. They must be saturated with this offensive so much so that they can see nothing wrong with what we do. Ie the implementation of Sharia or people oriented policies.

CIAO

[lionger]

myadudu, I find your comments quite funny and perplexing to some extent. I must be missing some thing, if not: what does Islam or sharia have to do with this??

[lionger]

Meanwhile it seems things might be heatig up:
http://odili.net/news/source/2004/sep/12/15.html

Govt Accuses Zamfara Gov Of Treason
FROM EMMANUEL ONWUBIKO, ABUJA

ANY state in the federation which resorts to discriminatory policies against other Nigerians may be on collision course with the Federal Government.

advertisement
 
From the reaction of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Charles Akinlolu Olujimi, the stage appears set for a test of will between the Federal and Zamfara State Governments over the latter's recent ban on non-indigenes in its schools.

In an interview yesterday, Olujimi told The Guardian that the government was studying the situation to establish the veracity of the report.

Olujimi said it was treasonable for any of the 36 federating states in the country and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to take such an unconstitutional decision.

Zamfara State Commissioner for Science and Technical Education, Alhaji Aliyu Mohammed said recently the state government had set up a committee to screen out non-indigenes from candidates short-listed for admission into post-primary institutions in the state. The objective of the policy, according to him, was to meet the educational needs of the indigenes of the state.

But Olujimi said "if it is true that Zamfara State has rolled out the policy of stopping non-indigenes from attending public schools, then it is a total negation of relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution and amounted to a threat to the unity and cohesion of the corporate entity called Nigeria."

He declared that the segregation policy was a clear violation of sections 18(41) and 42 of the 1999 Constitution.

Section 18 of the constitution provides that government is to ensure equal and adequate educational opportunities for all Nigerians, while section 41 provides that every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout the country and to reside in any part thereof. Section 42 states that all Nigerians are guaranteed right to freedom from discrimination.

The nation's chief law officer said the government would certainly do something to stop "this threat to national unity."

He said: "That (discriminatory policy) is very wrong and is a threat to the unity of Nigeria. Nigeria is a federation and under the constitution it is unconstitutional to bar citizens from attending public schools because of their place of origin."

Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka had on Thursday at a public lecture titled "Myth and history in the quest for identity" in honour of the Esama of Benin, Chief Gabriel Igbinedion stated that "although the agitation by the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) had become a nightmare to the entire country," the real signal of secession is the decision and actions of Zamfara State Government."

Soyinka said at the event in Benin, the Edo State: "Are you not aware that Zamfara State has seceded from the nation? Or, let me tell Mr President that Zamfara State has opted out of the federating unit."

[alhaji_aminu]

Lionger

The fact that you are perplexed and cannot see a connection between the issue @ zamfara tells me that your version of reality is flawed.
The whole issue is been talked about because Zamfara state is the unoffficial Islamic opposition in Nigeria. You'll agree with me there are others who dont like this idea. Soyinka is one of them.

Try to digest this.

Zamfaras action is not discriminatory. It is unusual but certainly legal.
So, try to see all this brouhaha about the school fees as a ploy by the media and mallam to discredit everything zamfara does!

Why? Because Zamfara is implementing Sharia and many non muslims resent that.

[mallamt]

myadudu
My question was very simple and you have tried to complicate it.  It is a pity you twist matters the way you do, you have not been truthful in saying (or giving the impression) that the debate/question of indigene or non indigene started with the zamfara matter.  You either have a very short memory or you think we have one.  The matter of indigene and non indigene was very topical just after the Jos massacre, when hausa settlers were refered to as non indigenes and this raised alot of debate on the matter to the point some one made examples with the likes of Gen Gowon (rtd) who is identified as a zaria man but was really a plateau man etc.  Now the same term has come up again in zamfara state so the questions raised has nothing to do with zamfara state, but has everything to do with how we as a people define the term, what effect our definition will have on the future generation of nigerians etc

[alhaji_aminu]

mallamt.

I concede having a short memory being the student I am.I memorize and recall only things which are of utmost importance to me....

You are also right in pointing out that the [indigene*] issue reared it's ugly head during/before/after the jost crisis.

* Quick note: A clear distiction should be made between the Jos situation and the Zamfara situation. The Jassawa in Jos (meaning the hausas) are considered 'settlers' and the Biroms 'Hosts' in Jos. Zamfara on the other hand will recognize someone who was born in the state or has lived long enough a 'citizen' worthy of any and all rights befitting an 'indigene' of the state...

What is true also is that you are writing about this issue not in may when the atrocities of Jos/Kano took place. What I have said is that if your intentions were sincere, Ie you wished to really know what the constitution says vis-a-vis indigeneship, you would have raised the issue in May.

There is plentiful evidence to this effect.

I rest my case!

peace

[mallamt]

myadudu
I am surprised you engage or part take in issues that are not important to you.  You are right that I did not raise the issue of indigene when it was mentioned during the Jos crises, but then please note that is was not the central issue, the central issue was the massacre. Currently it is being made a central issue in Zamfara state on the question of school admissions.  The raising it now is because it appears that the issue occupies a very contentious position in the minds of many nigerians and thus the term is coming up again in zamfara. You try to make comparisons between the Jos and Zamfara usage of the term it really does not make a difference, because it is neither here nor there. We should please not digress if you intend to discuss the issue, let us focus on the questions asked about the term, when we exhaust the discussion and probably even agree on some aspects of the definition of the term as a people we may then if we want look at how it affects or impacts on the Jos concept of the term or the Zamfara concept, for now they can not even form a basis of discussion, if we do not even collectively know or agree on what the term means.

I find your position also a bit confusing on the term, you appear to be in agreement with the use of the term in the zamfara sense yet you refer to the term as having an ugly head in your last posting.  You may want to assist some of us by you contextualizing your positions.