Despite founding Nigeria’s most successful hydrocarbon geophysical consulting firm and contributing significantly to the development of the oil and gas sector, Boniface Madubunyi, who died at 90 on May 13th in London, was practically unknown to the Nigerian public. That’s the way he wanted it. Very few persons anywhere can be so successful and yet so self-effacing, almost monastic in their lifestyle. Madubunyi, an engineer trained at the University of Manchester in the early 1960s who was given the Member of the Federal Republic (MFR) national honour under the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration, set up a geophysical firm, Mabon Geophysical Surveys Ltd, that competes effectively with Western ones. Statoil of Norway, now Equinor, Shell, and Chevron to name and some others invested in Nigeria’s offshore in 1992 based on data and analyses from Mabon. Madubunyi was the first Nigerian person to own oil blocks in both the United States and Europe.

He invested across various sectors, from power generation to real estate to oil exploration and production, yet he shunned labels like a 'wealthy man' or 'entrepreneur.' He preferred to be seen as a professional consultant. He embodied humility and professionalism.

An indigene of Ihiala in Anambra State, Madubunyi was cosmopolitan through and through. He accepted the challenge from the Federal Government to build and operate a 40-megawatt hydropower plant in Gombe State in the most difficult period in the country’s history. Since January 2020, this plant has supplied uninterrupted electricity to the national grid, with six states benefitting directly from it.

Soft-spoken, strikingly good-looking, and reserved, Madubunyi worked extremely hard. Researchers in applied psychology and management science can use him as an example of success brought about by deliberate practice, or the 10,000 hours principle, the concept that most people who have attained global excellence, whether in sports, music, or business, have put in about 10,000 hours of practice. He was still working even in his last days, though his son, Richard Kenechukwu Madubunyi who trained at Imperial College in London and the University of Leeds, had assumed control of much of the Mabon group in the last couple of years. His style is reminiscent of that of Warren Buffet, founder of Berkshire Hathaway and one of the world’s richest investors who at 93 is still immersed in work. A devout Catholic and son of a catechist and teacher, Madubunyi would retort anytime I inquired when he would retire: “The pope, who has the world as his constituency, still works!” He and I would discuss at 2 am on the phone, say, on Sunday, and before 7 am he would call again even when he was in his 80s, dead busy at work

In Madubunyi I saw the personification of the elegant statement popularised by Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder and chairman: simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. There was nothing flamboyant or extravagant about him or his style, but his houses, and his dress sense, for instance, reveal a man imbued with taste, class, and sophistication.

His wife, Nkiru, though born into a wealthy family, is equally modest and adapts easily to any environment. She and the husband always felt at home in my regular Mercedes Benz cars in the 1990s and early 2000s even they had specially crafted vehicles. Mrs Madubunyi’s father, Chief GE Okeke, built the Abbott group of schools in the 1950s in Sapele in today’s Delta State and in Ihiala, Anambra State. He became the Minister of Education and later of Economic Planning in the old Eastern Nigerian Region. The Great Zik of Africa trusted him and gave him a free hand to lead the team that built the University of Nigeria at Nsukka. Chief Okeke later conceived and built the Enugu campus of the UNN as well as Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education, Owerri, in Imo State. Proprietor of the Nigerian Starch Company who was to serve on a bank board, Okeke contributed to the development of Ihiala, his hometown, more than any other individual, dead or alive.

Though much of his life was spent abroad, Madubunyi was quite home-conscious. He was the first person to construct a major road in Ihiala, after Victor Okafor who built Ezego Road. Madubunyi singlehanded rebuilt the famous St Martin’s Catholic Church with strict instructions to the church authorities not to reveal the person behind it. He donated generously to the iconic Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Ihiala, also with an instruction to the owners and managers not to disclose his role. He bought a large swath of land to build an industry in Ihiala, but, owing to market headwinds, donated it to the Catholic Diocese of Nnewi. He also bought a large parcel of land to build a private university in Ihiala, but the project didn’t take off for some reason.

In appreciation of his generosity to the church, the ecclesiastical authorities offered to reward him with a knighthood, which he turned down with a customary smile. His Ihiala people did their best to bestow honorific traditional titles on him, but he rejected the offers politely; I used to call him Ugochinyere Ihiala, a “greeting” name given him informally by my cousin, Nick Mbaezue, on December 31, 2000, in the residence of Chief Charles Madubunyi, his lifelong friend who retired from the Customs Service as number three man without a house anywhere.

Unlike many men carried away by the riches of the world and pleasures of life and so became Epicureans, Madubunyi was ever conscious of what the English poet described as the inevitable hour. For about two decades, he prepared for the final hour, attending the mass daily and participating regularly in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Days before his departure, priests were visiting him in the hospital to administer the viaticum, the Eucharist given to a person about to leave this world. Yet, we must pray for the repose of the noble soul of Boniface Madubunyi and the souls of all the faithful departed. To Boniface Madubunyi, MFR, a most uncommon Nigerian, we say Requiescat in pace.

Adinuba was Anambra State Commissioner for Information & Public Enlightenment (2018-22).

The quantum of reservations and growing public disapproval of the Tinubu government has little or nothing to do with ideology. I am pretty sure that if anyone ever accuses Mr. Tinubu of being anything resembling ideological, he could draw a pistol. Yet his unrelenting dismal job approval rating and increasing popularity deficit is the result of  a fundamental ideological mix up.

The president would like to be popular, admired by the masses and praised by the elite. But his policies keep grating on ideas that make a leader popular. People do not want to pay more for fuel, electricity, essential drugs or a myriad of taxes. Yet these are the basic essentials of the Tinubu presidency for which he and his team want us to clap and sing their praises. It works the other way round. The more you subject us to suffering and poverty, the less popular you are likely to get. Yet, the crisis is not only Tinubu’s. It is that of his party or rather the way we have come to run our politics of nativity.

As a growing tradition, Nigerian politics attaches little or no importance to ideologies. The hints of ideology that appear in our party acronyms and names say nothing tour politicians or the public . It says nothing about who qualifies to join or control each party. It says nothing about the programmes and policies of the party even when it does come to power. The acronyms are mere labels that distinguish one party from the other. And the parties themselves are merely vehicles on which politicians ride to fight for power at elections. The vast majority of party members know nothing about the ideological implications of the labels of the parties they join or run on.

With luck, there may be a handful of party elite who dream up party names and use the ideological implications to craft a manifesto or party agenda for purposes of registration by INEC. Once registered, our parties proceed like renegades to wrestle and battle for power at state and federal levels. Politicians make promises and articulate programmes that have little bearing to the names or ideological hints of their parties. Win the election first and be reminded of the name of the party and what its ideology, if any, means after inauguration day.

When it is time to take stock of party and government achievements at the end of a tenure, the Nigerian public, even the elite, hardly judge our parties and governments by the implications of their ideologies. It is the personal stamp of the individual incumbent that is judged. It is the Obasanjo government, the Buhari administration, the Tinubu presidency that are at issue etc. Our subsequent elections become merely referendums on the individual whose imprint the departing administration carried.

If it is a PDP government that is in question, no one cares how “democratic” it was or how much it cared about the “people” implicated in the party name. If it is an APC government, no one asks whether its achievements were “progressive” or not.

And yet, political parties remain the bedrock and cornerstones of every democracy. By their nature, they are carriers of ideological values by the very names they bear. These labels are carriers and embodiments of core beliefs and values. To that extent, a party ought to “answer” its true name by maintaining a certain fidelity to its names and distinguishing ideological implications.

If you insist on being a “national” party as with the defunct National Party of Nigeria, we expect you to leave a legacy coloured by nationalism (“One Nation , One Destiny”). If you were  the UPN of old, we expect you to be a beacon of “Unity” at least among your membership and the larger society if possible.  In these days of the APC, the PDP and the Labour Party, we expect “progressives”, “democrats” and “workers” interests to dominate our political discourse.

But sadly, the clashes among the three dominant parties for popular support is being waged about the credentials of Mr. Tinubu, Mr. Atiku and Mr. Obi. Our quarrels are not about how “progressive” the policies of Tinubu are or how democratic an Atiku presidency would have been or how much the interests of workers and youth would have been protected if Mr. Obi became president. Instead, we are embroiled in ugly street disputations about Mr. Tinubu’s controversial  certificates, Atiku’s many vacation homes in Dubai or Obi’s perennial black costume and Onitsha market wealth.

In the specific instance of the ruling APC, something curious and more far reaching seems to have happened. Mr. Tinubu has chased away all the progressive elements of the party either by confining them to the periphery or chasing them into political “exile” as it were. Many are now asking: where is Rotimi Amaechi in the present scheme of things in the party? Where is Yemi Osinbajo in all this? Where is Adams  Oshiomhole in his unfolding drama? Why is my friend Nasir El-Rufai being tormented for all the progressive policies he pursued in Kaduna? Where are all the progressive elements in the APC who fought to chase off Mr. Jonathan and enthrone Buhari?

In contrast with Tinubu, under Mr. Buhari, the APC managed to be an inclusive amalgam of an ultra conservative president and his tribal cohorts surrounded by a mixed bag of “progressive” thinking leading lights with some confused rabble of state  functionaries and party apparatchiks. Mr. Buhari could at least work with state progressive governors and party leaders like Rotimi Amaechi, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, party Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole and Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

These gentlemen were progressive in a loosely defined sense of advocating social democratic and modernist policies and programmes. They at least showing an abiding concern for the welfare of the ordinary citizen through broad based programmes. Osinbajo used his office as Vice President to administer  credible popular  empowerment programmes like Cash Transfers, Trader Money, Small Business Support Loan Scheme and instant relief for those in extreme vulnerability. Mr. Amaechi used his office as governor of Rivers State to build modern schools in which education up to secondary level was free. Children were supplied free school sandals and uniforms and primary health centres were multiplied and equipped with life saving devices and competent personnel. Oshiomhole pursued similar policies as governor of Edo State and constantly reminded APC members of their commitment to the elements of progressivism as party Chairman. His trade union background came in handy here.

Rightly defined, Progressivism as a political movement and idea is a left of centre movement. Its core is a certain commitment to social democratic principles. It is decidedly pro-common people and in the process advocates policies and programmes that enhance the welfare of the common folk. Access to the basic essentials of life is the corner stone of all progressive movements. Access to basic healthcare.  Access to affordable popular education. Access to employment. Access to food security and security of life and property.

These, as against the advocacy of the interests of the rich and big corporations, tax relief for the rich, the protection of big energy companies and massive taxation of basic goods and services, would distinguish a progressive government from either a conservative or neo liberal pro-capitalist party.

If indeed Buhari struggled with finding a middle path between these possibilities,  President Bola Tinubu has had no problem with such a mixture. From the outset, he indicated a definitive option for conservatism and neo liberal capitalist policies. He chose Mr. Ganduje of the million dollar fame as party chairman. He opted for the famous Mr. Godswill Akpabio as Senate President and some other anonymous gentleman as House Speaker. He has also chosen a mixed bag of Ministers with the imperial Nyesom Wike, David Umahi and his Lagos gang of World Bank and IMF friendly Cardoso and Yemi Edun to man the economy. Tinubu maneuvered the National Assembly to ensure that the likes of Nasir El Rufai never neared his cabinet. It is also rumored that a former ally and progressive, Adams Oshiomhole, now needs special clearance to get an audience with the President in the Villa.

Almost like a deliberate policy, Mr. Tinubu has kept the real progressives of the original party at bay. No one knows his exact relationship with  Rotimi Amaechi  who was a founding pillar of the APC and principal enabler of the Buhari presidency. Amaechi is by no means a small tangential fish in APC waters. He came second in the presidential primary congress that produced the Tinubu ticket. In spite of sharing a common South West roots with Osinbajo, Tinubu has kept the former brilliant progressive Vice President at a distance. Not even the token emissary errands for which former vice presidents are famous!

In order to situate these developments and perhaps project on the future of the APC, we need to understand the major currents that produced the APC.

The APC was birthed out of Mr. Buhari’s resilient appetite for presidential power. Its victory in the 2015 presidential election was a product of both his regional cultic followership and a nationwide rejection of Mr. Jonathan’s bumbling presidency. Seven years afterwards, Buhari’s appetite for apex power has been fulfilled and arguably squandered. His pet nativist hegemonic project has come full cycle and overreached itself. And as he begins to gather his belongings to return to the pastoral anonymity of Daura, his APC vehicle now has an existential challenge: how does it survive in and of itself as a political party? How will it persist as a strategic national institution of democratic stability?

Looking back, the coalition of parties that gave birth to the APC was an inconvenient marriage of political convenience. There was nothing in common between a pseudo social democratic ACN, an ultra conservative CPC, a nationalist right wing ANPP, an ethno nationalist APGA and a renegade opportunistic centrist NPDP. The cardinal objective was to cobble together a workable coalition to wrest power from the PDP after 16 monotonous years. The idea of a multiparty coalition eventually gave way to the even better idea of a single opposition party.

Mr. Buhari facilitated and galvanized the marriage. He provided the amalgamation with a presidential mascot albeit one with a national name recognition. He also came dressed in an untested mythic garb of leadership prowess, governance prudence, barrack discipline and a reasonable level of personal integrity. Above all, he had managed over the years to build up a huge cultic following among the northern mob of rough uneducated and unemployed youth and regional power fanatics. Part of the motor park fable around Mr. Buhari was the infantile notion that once elected president, he would jail all the corrupt former government officials, recover the ill- gotten wealth and redistribute same among the poor masses.

Thus was born a party tailored more towards wresting power from an effete incumbent than for the effective governance of a country in desperate need for responsible leadership.  Given the tenacity of African power incumbents, the APC was more honed for the task of contesting the outcome of the 2015 presidential election possibly up to the Supreme Court. But when the results tumbled in mostly in its favour and Mr. Jonathan conceded defeat to Mr. Buhari, it was an overrated and unprepared APC that had to set up a government and ascend the pinnacle of national power. Victory came as a rude surprise with power as an unanticipated burden. Time has passed. Buhari has fulfilled his long standing ambition of wearing the toga of President. It is now time for the party to take stock of its stewardship and contemplate its future.

With the benefit of hindsight, the emergence of the APC reinforced Nigeria’s historic tendency towards a credible two party architecture. To that extent, it was a positive political outcome, one which promised a great dividend for Nigeria’s democracy. The new party came to power on the wave of expectations greater than its capacity and preparedness.

However,  the APC’s electoral success and stature as the de facto dominant party in the land has raised far too many fundamental questions about the present state and future prospects of Nigerian democracy. The central curiosity remains that of how a party with a dismal record of governance in the last eight years can score such overwhelming electoral success. If democratic elections are indeed periodic tests of the popularity and acceptability of a party, the verdict of the Nigerian electorate in this last election deserves closer look. Questions indeed abound.

Do electorates punish non- performing parties by denying them victory at the next election? Or, in the alternative, can a party, in spite of a dismal performance in government, still coast to victory at the next election irrespective of a massive popularity deficit? Is the electorate of registered voters a true representation of the popular wish at elections? Does the electorate have a mind, a memory, like a person, that either punishes or rewards past experience in the hands of a political party and its elected officials? Finally, is the public of voters in a democracy an insensitive mob that returns a party to power even if its government has hurt the people badly and betrayed the public trust and devalued the good of the nation?

Mr. Tinubu may not choose a definite ideological label to find his way around the maze of Nigeria’s problems. But his outcomes sill be badged by ideology. Even in the absence of definable ideological differences in our politics, the challenges that define today’s Nigerian reality call for ideological clarity.

We are drifting towards clear policy options that are ultimately ideological. Should we insist on obeying the IMF and World Bank by sinking more and more into unpayable debts? Or should we reduce waste, curb ostentation and instead invest our scarce resources in social welfare and empowerment of the majority. Should we save the nation or save the few rich oligarchs that our prodigal past has created?

Sooner or later, President Tinubu will have to choose between a reversion to the original progressive template of the party that put him in power and a tragic betrayal of that foundation. Either option is fraught with consequences. Without a clear choice, the president will be stranded at a critical junction in our national history.

He had everything going for him. Deep knowledge of several subjects, from his core area of architecture to the most rarefied dimensions of Classical German idealism. He had incredible access and contacts, from the political, sociocultural and generational, to the profoundly academic and ethereal. I recall a conversation, during which I said, “Ferdinand, it is sometimes amusing how you go prancing about and calling yourself a mere architect. Yes, you belong to the physical and design sciences by training and academic learning, but you are a polymath with a deep sense of the present. So, in case you don’t know, and in case no one has ever told you this, you belong in the academia, but not as a conventional academic or scholar”.

He is no more today. He left the flesh yesterday, in a-yet-to-be-believed tale of departure without the slightest whimper of a warning sign. He was at a wine carrying event on Friday, which ended around 9pm. While at the event, he tried to speak with Victor Anoliefo; who called him from the US. They could not talk much because of the noise level in his wine carrying location. They agreed to continue, and conclude, their discussion some other time. Well, that conversation will not be concluded as planned.
This brings us all face to face with the hard reality of earthly existence. You either live for something, or die unsung; notwithstanding your wealth and other matters. Just think of the many people now in tears and deep mourning because of this sad incident. They are not saddened because Ferdinand is no longer there to give them money, contracts or political leverage, no. They are mourning a great man whose greatness lay in what he lived and stood for and what he is remembered for.

He roared with laughter again and then continued: “You obtained a Ph.D. in philosophy after your first degree, without a Masters Degree. You are at home with practically any subject I can think of; from nuclear physics to climate change, political economy and global economics. So, my dear brother, in case no one has also ever told you this before, hear it from me: It does not make sense to common sense to behold someone who studied philosophy writing and teaching the sort of things you teach and write with appalling, or even contemptuous, ease. Look, I gave up on you, that is on trying to compartmentalize your capacities and capabilities, when I learnt you had started teaching Cyber Security and Cloud Computing part-time at the Nigerian Defense Academy (NDA) a few years ago. Biko, your guilt in regard to what you are trying to accuse me of is known everywhere”. His renewed laughter rang out loud and long.

He was a great person to be with. Informed, poetic, self-sacrificing and self-effacing in so many ways. Many brilliant ideas he birthed exist in government and the public domain generally today; but without anyone knowing his involvement in it. He was exemplary as the Director General of the National Maritime Authority (NMA), now NIMASA. The reforms he introduced, the international linkages he established and his profile and reputation as one of the most forward looking.and most dependable Head of Parastatal in the then Federal Ministry of Transport put him in a class all by himself.
Sauve, politically savvy in a decent sort of way and a relationship lubricant for many public office holders who either boxed themselves into awkward corners, or needed extra policy or political leverage to achieve their goals or ambitions. Ferdinand was never demanding of extra attention, pecuniary rewards or demeaning encounters. He was always frank about matters he could deal with and those he could not.

The New, and Pleasant, Development at Customs:
The news out there is that the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) is set to install scanners with 200 containers clearance/hour capacity. This will certainly address the problem of port congestion and drive efficiency, while putting an end to the nightmare (well, including daymare) of importers and clearing agents.
One thing is clear in this regard: The Custom’s Trade Facilitation Programme of the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr. Adewale Adeniyi, is yielding something worth looking forward to.  Nigeria Customs is working in collaboration with Trade Modernisation Project Limited on this infrastructural intervention. This will involve the installation of Gantry Scanners with the capacity to scan 200 containers every hour.

We first visited the Port of Ashdod. A very tall office building overlooked the port. It was deserted, lifeless and very uninspiring, when compared to the Lagos experience we were all familiar with. On the assumption that the port had been shut down, we asked why there was no activity whatsoever going on in what is reputed to be an extremely busy port. That’s when we learnt that everything in the place was automated. As we looked more closely, it became clear that many containers were actually in motion, shifted and loaded into many moving things by towering stationary cranes with arms spanning scores of meters. It was an uncanny sight to behold.

Information Technology experts and software developers are working long hours daily to deliver a foolproof system that would make export and import businesses easy in the country. It is expected that the desired Unified Customs Management software, which would leverage on geospatial technology, will deliver a new business experience; especially with customers software experts infused into the team of experts from the TMP Project limited.
Finally, the supporting infrastructure that would further enhance the planned, and expected, efficiencies should not be hamstrung by an inefficient transportation system. It will always take a cocktail of well-coordinated policies, actions and needed infrastructure to deliver sustainable interventions in any regulatory, or business, environment. But, for the record, NCS is squarely on the right track on this one.

It is indisputable that the people of Nigeria were not involved in the processes that led to the enactment and imposition of all the constitutions and other laws that were promulgated by the British colonial regime. Thus, the Lugard Constitution of 1914, Clifford Constitution of 1922, Richards Constitution of 1946, Macpherson Constitution of 1951, and Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 were enacted in London and imposed on Nigerians. But in order to protect the interests of the British Government and its allies at the end of colonialism, the Independence Constitution of 1960 was negotiated between the departing British colonial regime and the nationalist politicians.

Even the much-celebrated Republican Constitution of 1963 was a mere amendment of the Independence Constitution because it protected the interest of the indigenous ruling elite. Hence, the amendment of the Constitution carried out by the first set of parliamentarians was rather cosmetic. Specifically, the president replaced the British Monarch as Head of Government while the Supreme Court of Nigeria replaced the British Privy Council and became the final Court of Appeal.

However, the Nigeria Police Force, the armed forces, and other instruments of oppression established by the colonial regime were left intact to protect the interests of the indigenous ruling class while the post-colonial economy was left in the firm grip of imperialism. The anti-people’s colonial ordinances, which legitimized the exploitation of Nigeria by the British government, were adopted and reenacted as Acts of the Nigerian Parliament. No doubt, the 1963 Constitution recognized the relative autonomy of the Eastern, Western, and Northern regions as each of the regions had its own constitution and managed its own affairs within the neocolonial economic structure. In 1964, the Midwest region was carved out of western Nigeria to weaken the region as the northern and eastern regions were not split.

The manipulation of the courts and security forces by the ruling party aggravated the election violence that broke out in the western region in 1964 and the brutal killing of Igbo people in the north. Thus, the subversion of democracy and abuse of power by the chief operators of the 1963 Constitution led to a total breakdown of law and order in the country. It was under the pretext of restoring law and order that a group of young army officers led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu seized power on January 15, 1966.

The coup plotters killed the civilian Prime Minister, Mr. Tafawa Balewa, two regional heads of government, Messrs Samuel Akintola and Ahmadu Bello, and some military officers.

The national and regional constitutions were suspended while political parties, trade unions, and ethnic organizations were proscribed. The coup plotters were overpowered and arrested by senior officers who appointed Major General Johnson Thomas Umanakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi as the Head of State. A unification decree was promulgated to abolish regional institutions and the federal system of government. There was a counter-coup in July 1966, which led to the brutal murder of the military ruler, General Aguiyi-Ironsi, and the military governor of western Nigeria, Col. Adekunle Fajuyi.

The new Head of State, Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon, failed in resolving the political crisis. The military oligarchy ruled by decrees signed by the Head of State. Even though the military dictators claimed to have set up the Federal Military Government, it was a unitary government in every material particular. In other words, both Ironsi’s unification decree and Gowon’s supremacy decree were six of one and half a dozen of the other.

In 1967, the four regions were split into twelve states while military governors were appointed by the Supreme Military Council to govern them. The governors ruled the states by edicts. Regional institutions, including universities, radio, and television stations, were nationalized by the Federal Military Government. In 1975, the Murtala Mohammed military regime appointed a group of 49 persons to draft a new Constitution for the Second Republic. The Committee was headed by the late Chief Rotimi Williams SAN. At the end of the assignment, the committee produced two reports: the majority report prepared by 47 members and the minority report prepared by two members, namely the late Dr. Bala Usman and Dr. Segun Osoba. Since the minority report advocated for a socialist state, the Olusegun Obasanjo regime rejected it and forwarded the majority report of the Rotimi Williams group for the consideration of the constituent assembly led by Justice Udo Udoma.

Even though Chief Obafemi Awolowo declined to serve on the Constitution Drafting Committee, he lauded the body for recommending the entrenchment of chapter two in the Constitution. For him, the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy largely reflected the ideas canvassed by him in his book titled “People’s Republic,” published in 1966. However, upon the submission of the Draft Constitution by the constituent assembly to the regime, General Obasanjo single-handedly amended it and inserted therein four statutes, i.e., (a) the National Youth Service Corps Decree 1993; (b) the Public Complaints Commission Act; (c) the National Security Agencies Act; and (d) the Land Use Act. Even though these laws were not part of the Constitution, the purpose of entrenching them in the Constitution was to ensure that they could only be amended like other provisions of the Constitution.

Thereafter, General Obasanjo enacted the Constitution (Promulgation) Decree No 104 of 1979. Thus, the Second Republic was operated under Decree 104 of 1979, otherwise called the 1979 Constitution.

When the military sacked the civilian government again in December 1983, the 1979 Constitution was suspended. As part of the preparation for the restoration of civil rule, the 1989 Constitution was written by a Constituent Assembly led by Justice Anthony Aniagolu under the Ibrahim Babangida military junta. But, due to the annulment of the election won by Bashorun MKO Abiola, the 1989 Constitution never came into force. As General Babangida was forced to step aside, his plan to metamorphose from a military dictator to a civilian president failed to materialize. The plan of his successor and comrade in arms, General Sani Abacha, to have himself elected as a civilian president also failed. Hence, his 1995 Constitution did not see the light of day.

The last military ruler, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, repealed the suspended 1979 Constitution and imposed the 1999 Constitution on the nation via the Constitution (Promulgation) Decree No 24 of 1999. The committee that drafted the 1999 Constitution was headed by a famous jurist, the late Justice Niki Tobi. Even though the 1999 Constitution was not prepared by a constituent assembly, it is a replica of the 1979 Constitution in every material particular.

It is on record that the late Chief Rotimi Williams SAN once described the 1999 Constitution as a fraudulent document for telling a lie about itself. As far as Chief Williams was concerned, the Constitution was imposed on Nigerians, though the preamble stated that it was made, enacted, and given to the Nigerian people. In the same vein, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN has insisted that the Constitution is a fake document. With respect, the Constitution is neither fraudulent nor fake as its authors are well known. Indeed, in several judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and other courts since 1999, the Constitution has been described as the grundnorm of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Since the Constitution protects the interests of the ruling class, the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly of the 36 states of the Federation have resorted to regular amendment of some provisions of the document. The said amendments have also received judicial imprimatur. To that extent, it is not legally correct to say that the Constitution is fraudulent or fake.

In making a strong case for a new Constitution that will reflect the democratic wishes of the Nigerian people, it ought to be pointed out that there are some provisions of the 1999 Constitution that cannot be wished away. They include chapter two (sections 13-24), culled from the 1979 Constitution, which contains the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. Despite its limitations and contradictions, the chapter provides for participatory democracy, adequate security and welfare for the people, adequate housing, employment, and payment of unemployment benefit for unemployed people, payment of a national living minimum wage and pension, right to education at all levels, and right to health.

In particular, section 16 of the Constitution provides that the resources of the nation shall be controlled by the government and be equitably distributed among the people and that the commonwealth shall not be concentrated in the hands of a few people or a group. The provisions constitute the core of the socioeconomic rights of the Nigerian people. Even though the provisions are made non-justiciable, several laws have been enacted by the National Assembly to actualize certain provisions of chapter two of the Constitution. In a number of public interest cases, the courts have upheld the rights of Nigerian people under such welfare laws. It is interesting to note that the members of the 2014 National Conference unanimously recommended that the fundamental objectives and directive principles be made justiciable in the Constitution.

Under the defunct military junta, the central military government took over the control of the national economy. By fiat, the principle of derivation was jettisoned while the states were run as extensions of the central military government. The 1999 Constitution has challenged the absolute control of the central government in the management of the national economy. To that extent, no constitutional arrangement can jettison section 162 of the Constitution, which states that “the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than thirteen per cent of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources.”

This is unlike section 140 of the 1963 Constitution which merely provided derivation of “a sum equal to fifty per cent of (a) the proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that Region; and (b) any mining rents derived by the Federation during that year from within that Region.” The point that I am struggling to make is that the 13 percent derivation from revenue in section 162 of the 1999 Constitution is much higher than the 50 percent derivation from royalties and rents in the 1963 Constitution. Furthermore, the states that are entitled to the 13 percent derivation are equally entitled to a share in the monthly statutory allocations distributed to the three tiers of government by the Federation Account Allocation Committee.

The campaigners for restructuring have argued that the development of the regions before military rule was based on the 50 percent derivation applicable under the 1963 Constitution. This is misleading as the development of the regions was based on the huge revenue derived from agricultural products like cocoa, cotton, and palm oil. Agriculture, which was the mainstay of the economy, got a boost from the regional commodity boards which protected the interest of farmers. But the boards were abolished in the late 1990s as part of the conditionalities of the Structural Adjustment Programme. Unaware that the Commodities Board Act has not been repealed, Vice President Shetima recently announced that the federal government would soon set up a new National Commodity Board.

Even though President Buhari was opposed to restructuring, the devolution of powers recorded under his regime has been the most profound since 1999. Items like electricity, railways, and prisons which were in the exclusive legislative lists have been transferred to the concurrent legislative list. The implication is that states have been empowered to legislate in these areas for the overall development of the country. The financial autonomy of the state legislature and judiciary has also been restored by another constitutional amendment. No doubt, solid minerals are in the exclusive legislative list. But state governments and individuals are given licenses to mine them and pay royalties to the Federation Account.

Before then, licenses for oil blocks were awarded to a few registered corporate bodies and state governments which were required to pay signature bonuses and royalties to the Federation Account. The trend is going to continue as the Bola Tinubu administration has already awarded many oil blocks and granted licenses for solid minerals. Plans have also been concluded to amend the Constitution to pave the way for the establishment of state police in response to the worsening security crisis plaguing the nation.

It is pertinent to note that the main disputed area among the political class is whether the Constitution should provide for a presidential or parliamentary system of government or whether the country should have strong regional governments and a weak center. A fresh agitation has also arisen in the Niger Delta region for resource control in view of the decision of the federal government to allow state governments and private companies to mine solid minerals and pay rents to the Federation Account. In other words, the oil and gas producing communities have demanded to control the resources and pay rents to the Federation Account.

In view of the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the members of the political class have resolved not to discard or throw away the 1999 Constitution because it protects their class interests. This explains the regular amendments of the Constitution by every session of the National Assembly and houses of assembly of the states. In fact, each house of the 10th National Assembly has set up a constitution review committee for the purpose of further amending the Constitution. It is expected that the review will lead to another alteration of the Constitution.

No doubt, the country needs a new and popular Constitution prepared by the accredited representatives of workers, women, youths, physically challenged people, and other interest groups. But a new Constitution that is democratic, inclusive, and transparent can only emerge from the struggle of the Nigerian people. Therefore, it is indubitably clear that without a revolution to herald a new legal order, no new constitution will emerge in Nigeria.