CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the study

The rhetoric of restructuring has currently been dominating the public domain for some months and this topic has been publicized through the use of digital, print and electronic media. From every quarter, what seems like the in-thing now is restructuring. Every newspaper publication, news bulletin, speech and report is not complete until the issue has been mentioned. Former leaders and public office holders including former presidents, vice president and former governors; the academia, civil societies, professionals, students, politicians, religious leaders and serving governors etc. have all made their contributions to this national issue. From all the geo-political zones, this subject seems to re-echo and dominate public discourse. This creates an impression that people are now awake to the myriad of problems confronting the country and are determined to find possible ways of tackling them. Every geo-political zone has its own interpretation of restructuring. To the South-East, restructuring means creation of an additional state. For the South-South, restructuring means resource control. For the South-West, it means devolution of power and the North may see it differently, but whatever is the case, we are better off as a united Nigeria (Okorocha, 2017).

Though the concept of restructuring has assumed different meanings across the six geo-political zones of Nigeria following the renewed agitations, it is however challenging to establish a common meaning that will be acceptable to all. This resulted from the fact that Nigeria emerged in 1960 as an independent nation with a three imbalance regional configuration, autonomy and hegemony for the so-called majority Hausa/Fulani–North, Igbo–East and Yoruba–West. Even in the pre-independence, Okoli (2004) in Edino and PAUL (2015:61) noted that each ethnic group was operating its own different political, economic and administrative system. This metamorphosed into regionalism which empowered dominant ethnic groups in the three regions. This arrangement was criticised notwithstanding. According to Suberu (2001:126,127), the palpable casualties and predictable critics of this trilateral federalism were the country‟s estimated 250 smaller or “minority” communities, which constituted approximately one third of the regional and national populations. He submitted further that, the secondary victims of regional federalism were the South-Western Yoruba and South-Eastern Igbo groups, whose regional security was menaced by the demographic preponderance and the political advantage that Hausa-Fulani-dominated Northern Region enjoyed over the two southern regions respectively. Fifty-six years after independence, calls for the restructuring of the country have dominated national discourse with a lot of interest and obsession. In the First Republic, restructuring took the form of Region and Native Authority governments‟ creation. Presently, stakeholders are currently placing emphasis on the entrenchment of fiscal federalism, resource control, state police, equity, justice and fairness. The issue became topical, following the drastic reduction in the nation’s earnings at the birth of Buhari‟s civilian administration, with the slump of the price of crude oil and the return of militancy in the Niger Delta region, the growing menace of Fulani herdsmen and the bid to review the constitution (Odoshimokhe, 2017). It is observed that Nigerian elders who witnessed the pre-independence and First Republic allude to the glorious days of the First Republic, when there was healthy rivalry and competition among the regions. The Regions as they were had relative advantages that revolved around rich agricultural resources and animal husbandry. It is reported in Nigeria at 50 Compendium (2010:40-41) that; Long spells of dry weather interjected by shorter periods of rains in the year gave the arable Northern Region abundant yields of Shea butter, groundnuts, millet, sorghum, maize, beans, yams and many others. The Middle Belt ranges produced unending heaps of yams, cassava, rice and millets. At its average height, cocoa farming engaged over 40% of the entire productive labour force in the Western Region. Up to 70% of earned government revenue was derived from the export of the cocoa beans. On its part, the Eastern Region latched onto its dominant economic tree – the palm tree – to drives its economic engine. Although the colour and race of the civil masters had changed, regional governmental revenue inflow had remained static and predictable though not in volumes but in substance (2010:40, 41). Nevertheless, under the current dispensation, states simply go to Abuja monthly to collect handouts and spend it without recourse to the fact that they need to invest on their economies. Along this sad situation, when Nigeria is compared with Brazil, the Asian tigers and other notable nations who were at same level with her in the 1960s, Ndoma-Egba (2017) cited in Thisday (2017) said, the argument for or against restructuring is simply economic and that with the current structure, development cannot be definitely achieved since states were not created and administered on the basis of economic consideration. For instance, each state ought to maintain some measure of autonomy to be able to perform like the Regions during First Republic. The clamour for restructuring has become the political slogan that characterises the 8th Republic particularly from the opposition camp and well meaning Nigerians. However, the calls as Onaiyekan (2017), in Thisday (2017) observed is premised on the fact that many things in the country are not going well as a result of structural imbalance. He added that Nigeria‟s structural composition needs a rearrangement since the country has an imperfect constitution. Since restructuring is now the “song of praise” in this political dispensation, the answer to the question of what happens to ethnic minority groups? Where will their religious belief be placed and which groups gain and loss? These questions are pertinent owing to the fact that regionalism and states creation exercises during the First Republic and several Military regimes only perpetuated the interest of the Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo ethnic groups. For these groups, new, centrally funded state units represent more of conduit for federal economic and political patronage than an instrument for securing self-governance for the politically vulnerable communities (Suberu, 2001:128). Inevitably, the struggle for re-composition of Nigerian political structure by ethnic minorities of the country after the independence through the creation of states and local governments in order to assuage the fear of marginalization by major ethnic groups failed. Hence, Suberu asserted that ethnic minority elites have severally condemned the increasing use of states-creation apparatus to advance the financial and political aggrandizement of the major ethnic groups, and to promote the economic dispossession and political re-marginalization of the minorities.