It is not news that there has been concerted paranoia about the subject of the oft clamoured for Sovereign National Conference (SNC). The Federal Government obviously sees the SNC as an affront to the sovereignty of Nigeria while the proponents of the SNC bandy the idea as panacea to the entire problems of Nigeria. Political analysts from both divide however agree that the colonial amalgamation of Nigeria may hold the key to the pearly gates for Nigeria. I myself have argued along these lines being a strong proponent not only of the general meeting of people but of a colonial fault in the works of the Nation.
But the colonial act of welding forcefully different ethnic nationalities together is obviously not the only problem faced by Nigeria. The problem of greed and unabashed corruption, the lack of collective ideas, the economic glut as a result of the oil boom, the eternal dissipation of the agricultural sector and the ignoble chant for youths to go back to the farm are problems which cannot be attributed, at least directly, to the colonial Lugard and his imperial civil servants. The federal character, the geo political zones, the ghost states and arbitrary local governments, the presidential system, the jumbo salaries for government officials, the security vote, and the non performing budgets could not have been caused by Lugard. A little digression, a mystical friend of mine argued quite convincingly that Nigeria was doomed to fail at inception judging from the constellations on the 1st of October 1960. Even the mystical suggestion implies that the colonial compromise (which I happen to be a proponent of) might not be the omnibus cause for all ills.
The above argument also presupposes that the cause of Nigeria’s problems might not be only ethnic or religious. Dr. Hussaini Abdu in an interesting study of the Kaduna crises discovered that the layers of conflicting networks in Kaduna transcended both religious and ethnic loyalties. Komolafe in a This day article seeming to agree with this idea, pointed out that even the layer of class(professionals, students, poor, rich etc) was involved in this hegemonic tug of war. Being that Abdu utilized only a part of the North in his research, I am not sure that if beamed at other places in the North his research will hold true. Abdu’s theory therefore seemingly over complexifies an already complex problem by ‘omnibusing’ the North. Komolafe not only borrowed heavily from an Indian caste system completely excised from the Nigerian situation but also sought to put together other conflicting networks to disturb the waters.
I have gone through these arguments not to point out the crank in the works of great scholars like Abdu and Komolafe but to debunk any omnibus perception. Regarding the SNC, this omnibus perception presupposes on one hand that the problems of Nigeria will be solved by an SNC and on the other hand that there is actually one omnibus cause for Nigeria’s problem. On the government side of the divide the omnibus perception presupposes that an SNC will break up Nigeria.
Many analysts believe that the reason for the perception of the SNC as a tool for the breaking up of Nigeria might be due to the wording. Why should ‘Sovereign’ be part of the nomenclature of this suspicious meeting? Couldn’t it have been named a convention or consensus instead of a conference? Couldn’t we just put a caveat on discussions concerning the sovereignty of Nigeria? I think Pat Utomi falls within this group of genuine people trying to come up with an SNC compromise.
The Senate President David Mark recently declared that there will be no SNC. His reason was that the people had already elected representatives to amend the constitution and make laws, this right entrusted by the people to the lawmakers could not be abdicated. David Mark’s argument is valid but it does make some omnibus conclusions. The first is the pre notion that the SNC will be amending the constitution and the second is to presume that the senate is already empowered to discuss whatever is to be discussed in the SNC.
The SNC is thus an imperative. A wasp perched dangerously on a sensitive part of the body. A recurring nightmare that would keep haunting the sensibilities of Nigeria till it is addressed. There have been halfhearted trials in the past to politically water down the issues to be discussed in the SNC. Abacha, trying to ape his predecessor in political pseudonomics assembled a congress but charged them not to discuss the issue of the sovereignty of Nigeria. Obasanjo did the same thing also issuing a fiat that there are issues that can never be discussed.
This is like making a communiqué for a meeting that has not held. How can one set a fair wrestling match but warn that there should be no winner. Would the wrestling match not become a farce, a pantomime, a demonstration of a real fight and not the real fight itself. This has been the problem with former trial runs of the SNC – the unwillingness of the people and the government to lay the cards on the table. But there is another problem regarding modus operandi. How the SNC would be run. Would it be sponsored by the government with government agents running the event? Is it even an event? How long would it take? Who will nominate representatives to represent the rest of the people? Or should all Nigerians master the art of astral travel and project their avatars to the venue? Will there be a moderator? Or would it be a free for all. Should Nigerians be allowed to settle all knotty issues through the means of a shout down or (being great ‘apers’ of the American system) should we employ the legendary cowboy drawing contest.
It is my opinion that the SNC is not a single event but a process. Being that in Nigeria processes take a lot of time to unfold I must put a little caveat. It will not be a Nigerian process, just a process. It is also my opinion that arguments that the sovereignity of Nigeria should not be put on the table are absolute balderdash. In fact, it is the first thing that should be put on the table. This is just common sense deduction. It would be better to find out through a vote from Nigerians whether they would like to continue with the colonial construct called Nigeria. Would Nigerians want changes to be made? What kind of changes would Nigerians need? This would create a platform for further discussions in the SNC. If 90% of Nigerians reject the colonial construct called Nigeria would the remaining 10% hold it in place by force? It is therefore imperative that issues like these are discussed not only to save the time of Nigerians but to create a strong platform for lasting transformations.
Abuja
