PROF. BEN NWABUEZE SUMMONS A MEETING OF S'EAST GOVERNORS WITH NNAMDI KANU IN ENUGU

Prof Ben Nwabueze, renowned Constitutional Lawyer and Igbo Leader of Thought, revealed in a Press Conference yesterday that Nnamdi Kanu agreed to suspend the agitation for Biafra , if the country is restructured.

Nwabueze, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and an expert on constitutional law, also rejected the declaration by President Muhammadu Buhari, in his nationwide broadcast on Monday, that the National Assembly and the National Council of State were the legitimate bodies to determine the nation’s restructuring.

He revealed Kanu’s readiness to drop the quest for the emergence of the Republic of Biafra at a news conference he addressed with some leaders of the Project Nigeria Movement, a socio-political group recently created to engage leaders of thought across all the geopolitical zones in Nigeria.

He addressed the news conference alongside the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku; professor of International Law, Prof. Akin Oyebode; former President of the Ijaw National Congress, Prof. Kimse Okoko; former Managing Director of Daily Times of Nigeria, Chief Tola Adeniyi; a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Solomon Asemota; and Director of the Centre for International Advanced and Professional Studies (CIAPS), Prof. Anthony Kila.
Others included a chieftain of Afenifere, Chief Ayo Adebanjo; convener of the Yoruba Assembly, Gen. Alani Akinrinade; former Cross River State governor, Mr. Donald Duke; former Akwa Ibom State governor, Victor Attah; and Chairman of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Admiral Ndubisi Kanu (rtd).

Nwabueze, who presented the position of the Southern Leaders of Thought on Nigeria’s restructuring, warned against an imminent crisis if Buhari failed to heed the yearnings of the people that Nigeria should be restructured in a manner that guarantees equity and fairness.

Nwabueze said Kanu had already committed to suspending the agitation for a separatist state, if the clamour for restructuring “makes appreciable progress”.

The legal icon said: “Let me announce to you that Nnamdi Kanu has authorised me to tell Nigerians that if restructuring is progressive, he will persuade his group to suspend the demand for the Republic of Biafra and the plan to disrupt the 2019 general election.

“But if the federal government refuses to fairly restructure in line with the people’s aspirations and yearnings, there will be trouble. Nnamdi Kanu will not be the one to cause the trouble. The trouble will be caused by those who are opposing the will of the sovereign people.”

On this basis, Nwabueze called for “negotiated restructuring to be implemented through a new constitution” which, according to him, was the best assurance for the realisation of the collective desire for one Nigeria.

He said: “We are a sovereign people. We have the right to govern ourselves. We also have the right to determine what we want. Any person who attempts to deprive us of such rights, wants to cause trouble. The National Assembly does not have the power to restructure Nigeria.

“As a sovereign people, we have to rise against such individuals. It is for Nigerians as sovereign people to react.
“Obviously, lawmakers are elected. They have certain powers. But the constituent powers belong to the people. The National Assembly does not translate to a constituent assembly.

“If the constituent powers are now given to the National Assembly, they are simply asking for trouble. The trouble will not happen because of you and me. The trouble will happen because the person to whom the political power is delegated is depriving the people of their rights.”

Referring to the president, Nwabueze added that those at the federal level could no longer dictate what happens in the South-west, for instance.

“He can no longer dictate what happens in Ijaw land. He cannot dictate what happens in Hausa/Fulani land. He can no longer dictate what happens in Igbo land,” he charged.

Nwabueze, however, stressed that the call for restructuring “does not translate to disintegration”.

“We want one Nigeria. We want the constituents to manage themselves in all matters of localities. It is time to leave local matters to the local people. The ethnic nationalities want to govern themselves within one Nigeria,” he said.
He also called for a return to the federalism that existed under the 1960/1963 Constitutions, noting that the two legal instruments “were the central objects of restructuring”.

Nwabueze argued that restructuring would guarantee an optimal measure of self-determination or self-government, consistent with the territorial sovereignty of the country.

“In more explicit words, the essential purpose of re-structuring is to enable the component ethnic nationalities, grouped together by affinity of culture/language or territorial contiguity, to govern themselves in matters of internal concern, leaving matters of common concern, not overwhelmingly extensive in their range, to be managed under a central government constituted in such manner as to ensure that it is not dominated by any one group or a combination of them, and above all, to ensure justice, fairness and equity to all in the management of matters of common concern.

“The over-concentration of financial resources and relations in the federal government affronts true federalism in no less a grievous degree.

“An arrangement whereby every month officials of the state governments, including quite often the state governor himself, go cap-in-hand, as it were, to Abuja for their share of the money in the Federation Account disbursed or paid out to them by officials of the federal government as paymaster is a negation of true federalism; it simply caricatures true federalism,” he explained.

Nwabueze also held the view that the argument that the 1999 Constitution could only be amended or altered, but could not be completely abolished and replaced by a new constitution was erroneous because it failed to take account of the fact that the 1999 Constitution is only a Schedule to Decree 24 of 1999.

He argued that the decree is an existing law under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution and, like all existing laws within federal competence, can be repealed by the National Assembly.

Upon the repeal of the decree, the 1999 Constitution completely disappears from existence, he explained.
“Restructuring is not a matter that can be implemented by amendment of the 1999 Constitution. It imperatively requires a new constitution adopted or approved by the people at a referendum.

“It is sad that, while the clamour for restructuring is reaching a crescendo and is sweeping across the country, the National Assembly is still regaling us with talks about constitution amendment, and is buttressing its position on the erroneous assertion that the 1999 Constitution can only be amended or altered (Sections 8 and 9), but cannot be abolished and replaced by a new constitution.

“By taking this untenable position, the National Assembly makes itself a big obstacle in the way of restructuring.

“The view that the 1999 Constitution can only be amended or altered but cannot be completely abolished and replaced by a new constitution is erroneous because it fails to take account of the fact that the 1999 Constitution is only a Schedule to a Decree, Decree 24 of 1999.

“That decree is an existing law under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution and, like all existing laws within federal competence, can be repealed by the National Assembly.

“Upon the repeal of the decree, the 1999 Constitution completely disappears from existence,” Nwabueze pointed out.

On the way forward, he said: “We think the way forward for Nigeria is for the people, in exercise of the power inherent in them as a sovereign people, through a referendum, a new constitution, constituting a new political order. The process must be led by a president, as the elected leader of the people imbued with an ardour for change.”

CREDIT: THISDAY 

ONLY RESTRUCTURING WILL ENSURE THE UNITY, PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA, Southern Leaders Warn Buhari

ONLY RESTRUCTURING WILL ENSURE THE UNITY, PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA.

(Being Text of Press Conference by Southern Leaders Forum (SLF) on August 23, 2017 @Lagos)

 The Southern Leaders Forum (SLF) welcomes President Muhammadu Buhari back to the country after 105 days medical vacation in the United Kingdom. It is our fervent prayer that God Almighty will perfect his health so he can effectively discharge the functions of his office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  We have studied the national broadcast by Mr President on Monday 21August, 2017; and after a careful and thorough analysis of the speech, we make the following observations.

 1. The President expressed his disaffection about comments on Nigeria while he was away that "question our collective existence as a nation" and which he said have crossed the "red lines". Against the background of the threat to treat "hate speech" as "terrorism",we see a veiled threat to bare fangs and commence the criminalization of dissenting opinions in our national discourse . Experience worldwide has shown that any attempt to deal with dissent by force usually drives it underground which makes it much more dangerous and difficult to deal with .We should have learnt a lesson or two from Boko Haram which was an open organization before the state drove it underground and we are still under its reign of terror despite official claim that it has been "technically defeated" or "degraded ".  As elders who believe that it is better to seek solutions to problems, we appeal that we must engage in social engineering fully aware that globalization has made it very difficult to use repressive tactics to suppress opinions.

 2. Mr President deploys the imagery of the late Chief Emeka Ojukwu to play down the demand for the renegotiation of the structure of Nigeria by saying they both agreed in Daura in 2003 that we must remain "one and united". While we agree with them, the meeting between the two of them could not have been a Sovereign National Conference whose decisions cannot be reviewed .The fact that we agree on their conclusion that we should remain united does not foreclose discussions of the terms and conditions of the Union. The claim that Nigeria's "unity is settled and not negotiable" is untenable. Every country is a daily dialogue and there is nothing finally settled in its life. Stable nations are still fine-tuning details of the architecture of their existence now and then. How much more Nigeria that has yet to attain nationhood? If we are a settled nation, we would not be dealing with the many crises of nation building that are afflicting us today which have made it extremely difficult to squarely and urgently face issues of growth and development. The British negotiated to put the various ethnic groups together .All the constitutional conferences held in the years before independence were negotiations .When the North walked out of the parliament in 1953 after Chief Anthony Enahoro moved the motion for independence it took negotiations to bring them back into the union after their eight-point agenda which was mainly about confederation All the conferences held after independence on constitutionalism are all forms of negotiations .There is no peaceful co-existence that is not about negotiations in a plural society.

3. The one sentence by the President that every Nigerian can live anywhere without let or hindrance if meant to address the quit notice by Arewa youths against Igbos is rather too short to address the clear and present danger that the unwarranted threat represents. We are distressed by the refusal of the police to comply with the arrest orders given by the Kaduna State Governor and the Vice-President while the President was away. Instead of ensuring that these orders are carried out, the President has now come to just make a bland comment on the explosive issue. We are of the view that leadership requires more than this at this crucial moment.

 4. We acknowledge the President's admission that there are “legitimate concerns" in the land .That is commendable .We however disagree with his take that Nigeria is a "federation". Nigeria ceased to be a federation since 1966 after the first coup. The turning of Nigeria into a unitary constitution which is not conducive for peace and development in a multiethnic country is what the military-imposed 1999 Constitution, which lied against itself with the "We the people", is all about. This is the taproot of the crisis of nationhood in Nigeria.

 5. We do not accept the president's claim that the National Assembly and the Council of State "are the legitimate and appropriate bodies for national discourse". While we do not dispute that these are legal bodies, we insist they are not appropriate bodies to discuss the social contract that could bind us together as a nation-state. While the composition of the National Assembly is clearly jigged and indeed one of the bodies to be restructured, the Council of State is not open to Nigerians for any discourse .If any "discourse” is to take place on constitutional changes within the democratic framework Mr President is the one who has the responsibility to initiate the process.

6. We are equally miffed that the President talks about the serial onslaughts by AK-47 wielding Fulani herdsmen against defenceless farmers as a conflict between two quarrelling groups. In the last two years, the Fulani herdsmen have become much more ferocious in their attacks against farmers in the South and Middle Belt areas of the country with security forces shying away from enforcing law and order. To present the various onslaughts on farmers by these herdsmen as "two -fighting” would portray the President as taking sides with the aggressive Meyiti Allah.

 While we do not hold the administration responsible for all the causes of agitations in Nigeria due to the crises of unitary constitution, there are clearly many errors of commission and omission the government has committed that have accentuated the strong self-determination feelings across the country which only restructuring can tame:

1. The insensitive and clearly lopsided recruitments /appointments into all federal institutions .Even key prominent northern leaders have expressed openly their disapproval of the pattern of appointments.

2. Concentration of most of the heads of Armed Forces and other National Security Agencies in a section of the country.

 3. The President going on a global stage to say he could not treat those who gave him 5% of their votes equally with those who supported him with 97%

 4. Official indifference to the murderous activities of herdsmen against peace -loving citizens on their farms and other settlements.

 5. The flagrant breach of the constitutionally enshrined Federal Character principle.

 6. Appointment of Legal Adviser of Meyiti Allah as Secretary of the Federal Character Commission.

 7. The lopsided early retirement of mostly southern senior officers from the Nigerian Armed forces and other security services.

CONCLUSION

 As elders who have spent most of our lives fighting for the unity of the country based on justice, fairness and equity, we call on the President to realize that the country is in a very bad shape at the moment and requires statesmanship and not ethnic, religious, regional and political partisanships. This is the time to renegotiate Nigeria along federal lines negotiated by our founding fathers to stem the tide of separatist feelings and agitations. This is why we do not accept that it portrays the President in a favourable light to be away for a long period, only to return to a badly fractured polity and avoid promoting a new dialogue for a better, just, inclusive and peaceful country.

Chief E K Clark.                     Chief Nnia Nwodo.                         Chief R. F Fasoranti

Chief A K Horsfall                 Prof Joe Irukwu                                Chief Ayo Adebanjo           
 (South – South)                   (South East)                                                  (South West)