When recollecting history, Shittu Obassa said that the amalgamation of Southern Nigeria and Northern Nigeria took place in 1914. While this is true, it should be noted that it was not the only amalgamation in Nigeria’s history. There was an earlier one which took place in 1906. That was when the Southern Protectorate and the Colony of Lagos were amalgamated by the British Colonial administration.
Two years earlier, the British had concluded its conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate and brought all that territory that made up Northern Nigeria under British colonial rule. It would seem that the Decree(I refuse to call it agreement , because there is a great difference between the two ) , had a life’s span of 100 years. It means that it would have expired by 2014. But between then and now, a lot of ” water had passed under the bridge”.
All these culminated to the agitations for independence by the early nationalists and the subsequent constitutional conferences that gave birth to the 1960 independence constitution and the independence itself which made Nigeria independent of colonial rule, although the British Monarch still remained the ceremonial Head of Government until 1963 when Nigeria became a Republic and the British Monarch was no longer the ceremonial Head , as it exists in the United Kingdom up to date.
The almagamation that took place in 1914 needs proper constitutional and legal interpretation. My tentative understanding of its relevance to Nigeria ended with the various constitutions and finally the independence constitution in 1960. If it could.be argued that the amalgamation was relevant through the various constitutions and that Nigeria was still under colonial rule and therefore it was relevant , it could not be so when Nigeria became independent and was no longer under the makers of that decree. It means the very act of independence frees Nigeria from obligations under that decree.
Secondly, one could argue that it was not an agreement freely and willingly entered into by the parties . It was imposed by British fiat. It could be regarded as decree, just in the same fashion as military decrees. Unless subsequent legal documents acknowledge such decrees by specifically incorporating them, they remained irrelevant and not applicable.
The amalgamation document was neither incorporated into the independence constitution in 1960, nor made part of our laws, as it was done when some laws made under colonial rule were incorporated into our laws and became the English “received laws”. Additionally, an agreement has parties to it. You can not make any valid agreement with absent parties.The law recognises certain legal ingredients for an agreement to be legally made and binding.The parties to the agreement were absent. It is just like what MKO Abiola said, ” you can not shave my head in my absence”. That is what it was.
However, having argued this far, we can not at the same time reject all of what the British did, although by fiat. The very idea of the Protectorates and Colony of Lagos amalgamating were a British conception. We have come to accept what happened through the various constitutional conferences, before independence, and at independence. It means we have acknowledged and accepted what was done on our behalf in our absence . By that we have constructively given consent. The idea of Nigeria is therefore neither “a mere geographical expression”, nor “the mistake of 1914”. We operate a government by rules. Our constitution is the grund nom. As at today, we are guided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 ( as amended or altered) . In it, there is no mention of what happened in 1906 and 1914. Since it was bound by time, it became obsolete by effluxion of time.
Having said this, we turn to the concept of restructuring. You can not discuss a concept if you do not know its meaning. Restructuring means several of many things, to many people. To some, it is a combination of changes that should happen to the structure ,such as the idea of Nigeria, as a country, Nigeria’s federalism, the federating units, the devolvement of powers from the center to either regions to be created, or to the states that form the federating units. It also could mean resource control and, or, revenue sharing between the center and the units. To some, it is just maintenance of the status quo, but with amendments of the constitution, here and there. While yet, to others, it means disintegration of the country or secession
There is a cacophony of voices on the type of changes that should take place. The conversation is still on , although the current government is unwilling to move in the direction of the wishes of the various groups, but has however pushed the responsibility for such changes to the National Assembly.
The issue of referendum , to me is a non- issue. Referendum involves the people voting on any issue(issues) listed. It is usually “yes” or ” no”. While this may be one of the best ways of ascertaining the wishes of the people directly and not through their representatives, no mention of it has been made in our current constitution. If mention were made,, the constitution would have stipulated the type of referendum it would be, and how it can be evoked. This is a legal quagmire . We are operating a constitutional democracy and we are not allowed to go outside the provisions of the Constitution. The option that seems to be available is constitutional amendments by the National Assembly. Although public hearings are held, but will the National Assembly carry out, faithfully, the wishes of the people, is a question to be asked. If amendments are carried out, such amendments could include relevant clauses which would make referenda possible. However, another ingenuity could be the enactment of a “doctrine of necessity “, which allows the National Assembly to act on certain events that could not have been foreseen by the makers of the constitution. But this is a risky thing to do, because it could be manipulated and abused. It should only be raised on the happening of certain sudden and grave situations in order to save the country. However, it could be used by a government that is determined to have its way on certain issues, without going through the constitution or the people. This doctrine was used in the late President Umaru Yaradua’s case, thereby setting a precedence. However, this could be avoided in future, when necessary amendments are made with the benefit of hindsight. There is no perfect constitution anywhere in the world. A lot depends on the people operating the constitution. Once again, I agree with Alexander Pope, who said,
” for perfect constitutions, let fools contest ; for what ever is best administered is best”.
Constitutions are not static ; they are organic, susceptible to changes according to changing circumstances, in time . The National Assembly can not give us a brand new constitution, but it can achieve much through amendments and satisfy the wishes of the people.
J.D.EPHRAIM.