The political space in the nation has lately been energised by calls for restructuring of the polity with political and non-political actors speaking in dissonance on the issue. TUNDE OGUNTOLA writes on the renewed calls as political heavyweights bicker on the issue.

The renewed call for restructuring has become one of the most discussed subjects in public discourse. While some prominent voices in the nation uphold that Nigeria can perform better when it is restructured, others have described such call as a tool for blackmail to gain political relevance ahead of the 2019 general elections.
As this call gathers momentum, there is a corollary; the gnawing fear that equates restructuring with the breakup of Nigeria. The truth is technically, Nigeria has been restructured several times. Hence, true federalism should be pivotal as the present demand is to make the Nigerian entity and its integral parts, more efficient, more acceptable, more productive, more functional and above all, more equitable.

Nigeria arrived at the present juncture, first, because of entrenched distrust of the political leadership and second, because Nigerian leaders pathologically loathe political and academic analysis pointing them to vexatious national questions.
While the call has remained strident, nearly all of the trumpeters and traducers of restructuring have failed to give specifics on their intentions hidden on the call for restructuring. Indeed, a clear understanding of the term has remained wholly in the imaginations, a development that has further fuelled agitations.
Basically, restructuring is just a euphemism. Some people had earlier called it fiscal federalism; some people call it the federal system of government. However, this analysis is going to look at it from the angle of the federal system of government. We have borrowed the presidential system from a country that runs a federal system of government, United States of America.
As a nation, there is nothing we want to do that other people have not done before. So all we need to do is to do a comparative analysis and appreciate what other people have done and see to the extent we can deviate from that based on our culture and peculiar circumstances.
Hitherto, the advent of the military in politics made gobbledygook of the nation’s federalism since 1966 through the Unification Decree by the late Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi-led government. Based on its hierarchical command structure, the central military government became so powerful while the states are relegated and subordinated, like the Soviet Federalism of old to mere administrative units of the central government. The federal system of government is the direct opposite, the coming together of different entities for the good of all but not the loss of their respective independence.

Let us not get it mixed up, “restructuring” and “federalism” have become the most misrepresented words even by those who should understand and work for their actualisation of the system in the interest of peace and progress of Nigeria. Mischief makers have chosen to see the call for restructuring to gain political relevance and as a weapon to break up the country to garner support ahead of the next presidential elections and also so that others would not have access to the oil and gas resources.
First, according to Merriam-Webster, one of my favourite dictionaries, “restructure” means “to change the makeup, organisation, or pattern” of something to make it work better. One of the example sentences given by the dictionary is very instructive: “You should restructure this sentence to make its meaning clearer”. There is nothing more to restructuring a nation than rearrangement, usually for greater efficiency. Those who read something else into it, such as the disintegration of the country, are either being misled or are simply mischievous.
Second, it should be stressed that the call for restructuring is not merely a Nigerian craze; rather, it is central to the global expression of nativist, nationalist, or self-determination craving we have come to know as the New Nationalism. Although expressed differently in different countries and for different reasons, restructuring or its variant has been the central theme of the New Nationalism spreading across the globe, including those countries associated with robotics engineering and nanotechnology.
If properly harnessed true federalism will help curb corruption at all level of government. For instance, with greatly reduced income at the national level profligacy is bound to fall. At the state and local levels also once everyone realise that the resources are gotten from their local capitals, which are accessible, rather than just the national level.

This is even as the actual call for restructuring of the Nigerian polity became widespread in the wake of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, believed to have been won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola. The general belief then was that the military was able to perpetrate the injustice against Abiola because of the skewed nature of the Nigerian polity.
Ever since it took off with that campaign, the South-West has maintained a focused view of the idea, whether it was called restructuring, Sovereign National Conference or fiscal federalism.
In further terms, talks about devolution of powers, interplay of power systems, fiscal federalism, questions of resource control and relationships between the government structure and religion as well as the mode of occupying public office at the federal and state levels, these are some of the issues packed into the restructuring debate at every instance.
Hence, pundits are of the view that without restructuring the polity as it currently stands and without a true peoples’ constitution the nation is merely postponing the evil day.
Interestingly, the 2014 national conference, already seen as a veritable kickstart of the restructuring debate by the Senate, addressed a number of the components of the practical restructuring listed above. Its final report submitted to government contained recommendations on the need for political, economic and the social re-engineering of the polity.
Consequently, as a tool for aspirants to sell themselves to Nigerians, restructuring is now perceived as a major issue that will dominate the 2019 presidential election, just as it was recently pitched by two political heavyweights against each other as Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo responded to comments credited to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar regarding his argument on restructuring which he said is vague, ambiguous, unclear and mixed up with good governance and diversification of the economy.
Osinbajo who took on his predecessor in a letter he personally authored and sent to Premium Times, noted that Atiku was leveraging on the spur of the moment to score cheap political points by introducing the concept of restructuring even though he is not fully conversant with the subject matter.
Picking holes on Atiku’s position, Osinbajo insisted he does not believe that geographical restructuring was an answer to Nigeria’s socio economic circumstances. That would only result in greater administrative costs. Recalling events at a town hall meeting in Minnesota US, he said that the problem of Nigeria was not geographical restructuring but prudent management of national resources and providing for the people properly.

Osinbajo also said prudent management of the nation’s resources and the provision of essential needs of the people were better ways of addressing Nigeria’s development challenges.
According to him, “Problem with our country is not a matter of restructuring and we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into the argument that our problems stem from some geographical restructuring.”
He maintained that Nigeria needs good governance, honest management of public resources, deeper fiscal Federalism, a clear vision for development and not geographical restructuring as postulated by Atiku. The VP said “Kindly permit me a response to a piece in your publication, titled “Osinbajo got it wrong on Restructuring,” written, we are told, by my illustrious predecessor in office, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
“First, let me say that I really would have expected Alhaji Abubakar to at least get the full text of my comments before his public refutal of my views. But I understand; we are in that season where everything is seen as fair game!
“He quoted me as saying that “the problem with our country is not a matter of restructuring and we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into the argument that our problems stem from some geographic re-structuring.”
“Yes, I said so. As the quote shows, I rejected the notion that geographical restructuring was a solution to our national problems. Geographical restructuring is either taking us back to regional governments or increasing the number of States that make up the Nigerian federation. As we all may recall, the 2014 National Conference actually recommended the creation of 18 more States. And I argued that, with several States struggling or unable to pay salaries, any further tinkering with our geographical structure would not benefit us. We should rather ask ourselves why the States are underperforming, revenue and development wise.
“I gave the example of the Western Region (comprising even more than what is now known as the South West Zone), where, without oil money, and using capitation tax and revenues from agriculture and mining, the government funded free education for over 800,000 pupils in 1955, built several roads, farm settlements, industrial estates, the first TV station in Africa, and the tallest building in Nigeria, while still giving up fifty percent of its earnings from mining and minerals for allocation to the Federal Government and other regions.
“I then argued that what we required now was not geographical restructuring but good governance, honest management of public resources, deeper fiscal Federalism, and a clear vision for development.

“On the issue of deeper fiscal Federalism or restructuring, I explained how the then Lagos State Government, led by Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, decided to fight for greater autonomy of States. As Attorney-General at the time, it was my duty and privilege to lead the legal team against the then Federal government, in our arguments at the Supreme Court.
Osinbajo in his response also disagreed with President Muhammadu Buhari on the creation of state police. While the president had rejected it saying creation of state police will inflict more financial burdens on the states who are still struggling to pay workers salaries, the Vice- President argued in favour of it.
He said “I have argued in favour of State Police, for the simple reason that policing is a local function. You simply cannot effectively police Nigeria from Abuja”.
“Only recently, in my speech at the anniversary of the Lagos State House of Assembly, I made the point that stronger, more autonomous States would more efficiently eradicate poverty. So I do not believe that geographical restructuring is an answer to Nigeria’s socio economic circumstances. That would only result in greater administrative costs.
“But there can be no doubt that we need deeper fiscal Federalism and good governance. Alhaji Atiku’s concept of restructuring is understandably vague, because he seeks to cover every aspect of human existence in that definition. He says it means a “cultural revolution”. Of course, he does not bother to unravel this concept. He says we need a structure that gives everyone an opportunity to work, a private sector driven economy. Yes, I agree. These are critical pillars of our Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), including our Ease of Doing Business Programme.
“If, however, this is what he describes as restructuring, then it is clear that he has mixed up all the issues of good governance and diversification of the economy with the argument on restructuring. Good governance involves, inter alia, transparency and prudence in public finance. It involves social justice, investing in the poor, and jobs for young people; which explains our School Feeding Programme, providing a meal a day to over 9 million public school children in 25 States as of today.
Few hours after Osinbajo’s response, Atiku fired back describing as unfortunate, Osinbajo’s claim that his position on restructuring was vague “because he seeks to cover every aspect of human existence in that definition.”
Atiku in a statement titled: ‘Restructuring Is a Necessity, Not an Option’ Atiku said he had been at the forefront of the discourse on restructuring Nigeria since the 1995 Abacha Constitutional Conference, noting that to the best of his knowledge, there has not been any term like ‘geographic restructuring.’
Countering Osinbajo’s claim, Atiku said he was yet to see “how these clear and specific ideas can be described as ‘vague’.
“One would have thought that if anything is vague, it would be the idea of ‘geographic restructuring’ whose meaning is hanging in the air,” he added.
Atiku noted that Osinbajo in his letter, jumped from the topic restructuring to dovetail into the area of the economy, but stated the vice president failed to explain certain facts “such as the fact that the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics reported in December 2017 that Nigeria lost 7.9 million jobs in the 21 month period under review.”
He added that if the vice president could not see that losing 7.9 million jobs in 21 months while creating 500,000 jobs is a deficit, “then I do not know what to say to the honourable professor.”
He noted that Osinbajo harped on the administration’s prudence in public finance, but he failed to show the wisdom in sharing $322 million of Abacha funds to the poor only to take a loan of $328 million from the Chinese the very next month.
“Many Nigerians, myself included, see this as imprudence,” Atiku said.

He also disagreed with Osinbajo that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) government, in four years (between 2010 and 2014) earned $381. 9 billion, the highest oil revenues in Nigeria’s history, to $121 billion by the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari from May 2015 to June 2018.
He also advised Osinbajo to choose whether he is for restructuring or against it and not stand in the middle on the issue.
“My response to Vice President Osinbajo is that while I was Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2006, Nigeria’s Economic Management Team, of which I was a prominent member, paid off Nigeria’s entire foreign debt of $30 billion, at a time when we were earning one third of what the Buhari administration is currently earning from oil. So such arguments are puerile at best.
“My advice to the Vice President is that he should choose whether he is for restructuring or whether he is against it and stick to his choice.
“This continuous prevarication, this approbation and reprobation, helps no one, least of all true progressives who know that Nigeria needs to be restructured and restructured soon,” Atiku concluded.
Conversely, as the nation moves towards the 2019 general election, the new almighty formula for solving all the problems of Nigeria, according to some perennial noise makers, is what they call “restructuring.” The current noise makers about restructuring are insisting that the report of the 2014 national conference organised by the Jonathan administration is the basis of the current “restructuring” agenda. Apart from the fact that it was unrepresentative and inequitable it was composed of hand-picked delegates who were not elected by anyone. President Jonathan himself refused to do anything with the report, even the administrative aspects that he could implement without any legislative input, he did nothing. The current National Assembly is therefore very disingenuous to ask the Buhari administration to give them the 2014 report when it is not recognised by the government. It can only be the basis of confusion and not any solution.
Meanwhile, the heavy responsibility of ensuring prudent management of the nation’s resources and ensuring that the nation practices true federalism by providing for the need of the people, ensuring productivity, more functional and above all, more equitable Nigeria via practice of true federalism rests squarely on the shoulders of President Muhammadu Buhari. He should take the bull by the horn.

http://www.mcebisco.com.ng/2018/09/issues-as-restructuring-debate-gets.html