By Editor
In a bold and unequivocal statement, Tony Nnadi, on behalf of the Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination (NINAS), has once again sounded the alarm on the critical issue of Nigeria’s restructuring. Nnadi’s latest rejoinder, released on August 8, 2024, comes in response to a video clip circulating on the internet advocating for restructuring in a manner that NINAS argues is fundamentally flawed. Nnadi’s statement is not just a rebuttal but a clarion call for a radical and comprehensive overhaul of Nigeria’s political and constitutional framework, warning that anything short of this will inevitably lead to the country’s collapse.
The Urgency of the Moment: A Nation on the Brink
Nnadi’s statement is as much a critique of the current discourse on restructuring as it is a dire warning about Nigeria’s future. The rejoinder begins by addressing what NINAS sees as misleading and superficial prescriptions for restructuring that fail to address the root causes of Nigeria’s systemic failures. According to Nnadi, these superficial approaches only scratch the surface of a much deeper and more dangerous problem: the foundational flaws in Nigeria’s unitary constitution, which have perpetuated a dysfunctional and unsustainable union.
For NINAS, the conversation about restructuring cannot be limited to tinkering with the current system or making cosmetic changes. Instead, Nnadi argues that the only viable path forward is the wholesale decommissioning of the 1999 Constitution, which he describes as a “Unitary Constitution of Death.” This constitution, he asserts, is the product of a series of military decrees that have imposed an unworkable and oppressive unitary structure on a country that was originally conceived as a federation of autonomous regions.
A Historical Perspective: The 1967 Turning Point
To understand the gravity of Nnadi’s argument, it is essential to revisit the history of Nigeria’s constitutional development. Nnadi points to 1967 as the year when Nigeria was irrevocably derailed from its path as a federal republic. In that year, the Northern Establishment, through its military wing, dismantled the federal constitutional structure that had been negotiated and agreed upon at independence in 1960. This action marked the beginning of what Nnadi describes as “Caliphate Bloody Brigandage,” a 33-year period of military rule that culminated in the imposition of the 1999 Constitution.
According to Nnadi, the 1999 Constitution codified a unitary system that was never agreed upon by the constituent regions of Nigeria. This unitary system, with its 36 states, 774 local governments, and a bloated 68-item exclusive legislative list, has created a monstrous and unsustainable structure of 812 governments. This structure, Nnadi argues, is financed by the forcefully hijacked resources of the erstwhile federating regions, leading to an untenable situation where the cost of governance has become an unbearable burden on the nation’s treasury.
The Financial Burden: A Monstrous Structure
One of the most compelling aspects of Nnadi’s rejoinder is his analysis of the financial implications of Nigeria’s current political structure. The 812 governments, with their thousands of bureaucracies, represent an enormous financial burden that is draining the country’s resources. This burden is exacerbated by the hefty salaries and allowances of government officials, which have contributed to the country’s crippling debt and economic stagnation.
Nnadi’s critique is not just about the financial cost of maintaining this bloated structure but also about the deeper consequences of this arrangement. He argues that the unitary system has stifled innovation, discouraged economic diversification, and perpetuated a culture of dependency on oil revenues. This has left Nigeria vulnerable to the boom-and-bust cycles of the global oil market and has made it increasingly difficult for the country to achieve sustainable development.
The Illusion of Restructuring: Misguided Proposals
In his rejoinder, Nnadi takes aim at those who advocate for restructuring without addressing the fundamental issues at the heart of Nigeria’s crisis. He argues that proposals to retain the current structure of six geopolitical zones, 36 states, and 774 local governments are not only misguided but also dangerous. These proposals, he contends, are based on a false premise that Nigeria can be restructured without first decommissioning the 1999 Constitution.
Nnadi is particularly critical of those who propose a new governance model, such as a parliamentary system, without first resolving the more pressing issues of the union’s structure and the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution. He argues that these proposals are akin to putting the cart before the horse, as they fail to address the foundational question of whether the diverse ethnic groups that make up Nigeria have agreed to be part of a single political union.
The Three Critical Questions: Union, Structure, and System
Nnadi’s rejoinder is built around three critical questions that he believes must be addressed in the proper sequence to achieve meaningful restructuring. These are:
- The Question of Union: Have the diverse ethnic constituent components of Nigeria agreed to be one political union? This question goes to the heart of the legitimacy of the Nigerian state and its constitution. Nnadi argues that without a clear and unequivocal answer to this question, any attempt at restructuring is doomed to fail.
- The Question of Structure: In what formations have the constituent components of Nigeria agreed to relate as one political union? This question addresses the issue of federalism versus unitarism and the need to determine who the federating units are, how many tiers of government should exist, and what the power relations between these tiers should be.
- The Question of System: Should Nigeria operate under a presidential or parliamentary system of government? This question, according to Nnadi, is tertiary and should only be addressed after the first two questions have been satisfactorily resolved.
Nnadi’s emphasis on the sequence of these questions is crucial. He argues that jumping ahead to discussions about the system of government without first addressing the more fundamental issues of union and structure is a recipe for disaster. It is this lack of discipline and clarity in the restructuring debate that Nnadi believes is driving Nigeria toward collapse.
The NINAS Propositions: A Pathway to Redemption
In response to the confusion and contradictions that characterize the current debate on restructuring, Nnadi outlines the NINAS Union Reconfiguration Propositions as a viable and time-bound mechanism for navigating Nigeria from its current distress situation to a pathway of redemption. These propositions are designed to provide a clear and structured approach to resolving the constitutional grievances that have plagued Nigeria since 1967.
Central to the NINAS approach is the need for a Transitioning Process that allows for a peaceful and orderly resolution of the union dispute declared by NINAS in December 2020. This Transitioning Process would involve the decommissioning of the 1999 Constitution, the establishment of a new constitutional framework based on the freely negotiated agreements of Nigeria’s constituent components, and the restructuring of the country into a true federation of autonomous regions.
The December 2020 Constitutional Force Majeure: A Turning Point
Nnadi’s rejoinder also revisits the December 16, 2020, Constitutional Force Majeure declared by NINAS, which formally notified the Nigerian state and the international community of the union dispute. This declaration marked a turning point in the struggle for self-determination by Nigeria’s indigenous nationalities and set the stage for the current push for constitutional restructuring.
The Constitutional Force Majeure, according to Nnadi, was a necessary step to compel the Nigerian state to address the grievances of its constituent components. It was a clear and unambiguous statement that the status quo is no longer acceptable and that the people of Nigeria will no longer be bound by a constitution that was imposed on them without their consent.
The Way Forward: A Call for Discipline and Honesty
As Nnadi concludes his rejoinder, he calls for discipline and honesty in the ongoing debate about Nigeria’s future. He warns that unless Nigerians soberly dissect the issues at hand and engage them with honesty and integrity, the country is destined to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. The consequences of such a collapse, Nnadi warns, would be catastrophic, not only for Nigeria but for the entire West African sub-region.
Nnadi’s rejoinder is not just a critique of the current state of affairs but a call to action. It is a call for Nigerians to take ownership of their future and to demand a restructuring process that is rooted in justice, equity, and the freely negotiated agreements of all the country’s constituent components. It is a call for a new Nigeria, built on the principles of true federalism and self-determination.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Restructuring
The NINAS rejoinder, as articulated by Tony Nnadi, is a powerful and compelling argument for the urgent need to restructure Nigeria. It is a reminder that the country’s current trajectory is unsustainable and that only a radical and comprehensive overhaul of its political and constitutional framework can prevent its collapse.
The stakes are high, and the time is short. Nnadi’s message is clear: Nigeria must find the discipline and honesty to address its grave constitutional grievances, or it will crash unceremoniously under the weight of its own contradictions. The choice is ours to make, and the consequences of that choice will shape the future of Nigeria for generations to come.
