Referendum is the best way to get genuine people’s constitution —Ex-Gov Fayemi.

Referendum is the best way to get genuine people’s constitution —Ex-Gov Fayemi.                By Lasisi  Olagunj.

Dr Kayode Fayemi, a former governor of Ekiti State, former chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum and a one-time Minister of Mines and Steel Development, in this interview by LASISI OLAGUNJU, speaks on a variety of national issues.

A group of eminent Nigerians called ‘The Patriots’ recently visited the president with requests for a constituent assembly and a new constitution. What are your views on those demands?

Constitution review has been a ding-dong affair since the inception of this republic in 1999. Don’t forget that the republic came into being without anybody having the privilege of seeing the document that labels itself as coming from “we the people”. Since then, there’s been a relentless campaign for the people’s constitution. The Patriots have been at the forefront of that campaign. As a civil society leader, I was a founding member of the Citizens’ Forum for Constitutional Reform which we also started in 1999, and my organisation, the Centre for Democracy and Development served as the Secretariat and we even went ahead to produce a model alternative constitution. There were many such initiatives. In response to these various agitations, the Obasanjo and Jonathan administrations convened constitutional forums in 2005 and 2014 and came out with positions. Even at the level of our own party – the APC, we also set up the APC Committee on True Federalism in 2016 led by Mallam Nasir El Rufai and also produced a very useful document. I say all this to let you know that the struggle for constitutional reform has been long and unrelenting and I’m completely in sync with The Patriots’ agenda and their visit to the President. I guess what they did during the visit that I agree with most and I hope the President will eventually see the need for this is the manner they have addressed the lacuna in the current amendment provisions in the 1999 constitution. The Patriots have suggested a process that will culminate in a referendum in which the draft constitution is put to vote. Indeed, there can be no people’s constitution without the people’s input. That will amount to legality without legitimacy and that’s the lacuna in the current attempts at reform. And to bridge the gap that exists between the National Assembly currently saddled with the reform responsibility by the current constitution and the people campaigning for broader legitimacy, my own suggestion would be for the President to submit an executive bill to the NASS incorporating a synthesis of previous documents ranging from the 2005 and 2014 processes and any new additions like the APC report and then subject this to the two thirds principle of state legislative assemblies’ ratification and subsequently public referendum. The only risk I see with a referendum as we have witnessed in other polities is the risk of extraneous factors that may interfere with the real issue of constitutional reform. But even at that, it’s still the best way to get a genuine, people’s constitution which will help deepen our very fragile and troubled democracy.

 

You were the chairman of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) when the NG-CARES Programme started. Can you tell us, sir, the story behind the loan vis a vis the ongoing controversy over the utilisation of the funds by state governors?

Yes, I was Chairman of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) when NG-CARES started. We had COVID-19 pandemic which ravaged the entire world in 2020/2021. There were a range of interventions undertaken both at the Federal and state levels to treat and prevent the spread of the pandemic as well as attend to the deleterious impact on the economy and livelihoods. I was involved in a range of conversations in my capacity as Chairman with the Federal Government, private sector players organised as CACOVID led by Alhaji Aliko Dangote and multilateral institutions and other development partners led by the World Bank in response to the pandemic and post pandemic challenges. One of the initiatives that we successfully negotiated was the $750m programme for results concessional lending from the World Bank. The scheme known as Nigeria Community Action for Resilience and Economic Stimulus programme (NG-CARES) is a US$750.00 million programme funded by the World Bank.  The programme for results initiative works on a reimbursement basis. States must first spend their own money to mitigate the negative impact of the socioeconomic shocks occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic in areas already agreed with the World Bank by states and all states were billed to benefit as long as they met the conditions precedent and there were independent verification agents that reviewed the DLIs.  States submit verifiable data of their implementation of this programme to the FG, who acts as the agent of the World Bank for this purpose because Nigeria is the sovereign that is eligible to borrow from the Bank.  The World Bank then reimburses the States through the FG the cost they have expended on the programme, all aimed at mitigating the negative effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, as agreed with the World Bank. I know a lot about this because quite apart from being the Chairman of Governors, I was actually the focal point on the negotiations from scratch and the main negotiator on the WB side was the Task Team Leader in charge of Social Protection at the Bank, Professor Foluso Okunmadewa. The International Economic Relations Department of the Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and Planning was the main agent for the Federal Government.

It is unfortunate that this well thought out programme has now become the subject of unnecessary controversy. The presidential staffers responsible for writing the speech delivered by the President were really responsible for this misinformation. While it may not have been deliberate on their part, I think it also speaks to the absence of policy coordination and information sharing because there’s nothing that I have highlighted above that’s not known to the Ministers of Finance and Budget and National Planning. And from what I have said, it is clear that this was not a gift or a grant from the Federal Government to States but a well documented concessional lending for which states are responsible to repay. Now that it’s clear that it’s a loan, perhaps the only other legitimate issue that can be raised is whether it was well utilised or not. And that’s the benefit of the programme for results initiatives because the World Bank will not pay unless the Independent Verification Agents confirm that funds had been appropriately utilised. I believe certain states were not paid in the refunds that made the headlines in the media. You as the media can go round the thirty six states and investigate how they spent their own loans for which they have been reimbursed. So, state Governors were right to have objected to the impression created by the President’s speech and it’s also appropriate that the Presidency has now retracted its earlier position on this. What’s sad is the way they are still doubling down that they are the guarantors of the loan. Every loan from the World Bank to states is guaranteed by the sovereign. Nigeria is the sovereign, not the states but the repayment is coming from the states, deducted at source and not from the Federal Government.

 

Some Nigerians are saying that governors, rather than the president, should be held responsible for the cost of living crisis in the country. As a former governor and stakeholder in Nigeria, where do you think the problem lies and what would you suggest as the way out?

The thirst for excuses and culprits to blame for our obvious challenges is an insatiable one. In fact, there’s a whole industry around it. As an academic, we always talk about cause and effect, remote and immediate causes, agency and structure, symptoms and causes etc. All of that makes sense, but for  be careful about conflating cause and symptom or abstracting symptoms from context and absolutising them as independent variables. Important as the blame game may be for some, the real issue that all of us are interested in now is: how do we drag ourselves out of the hole we are in. The elephant is a behemoth and very often you can only see it from your vantage point. I have served as a Federal Minister, I have also been a state governor and chaired the Forum of Governors, often negotiating with the federal government. I have also been a civil society agitator railing against malfeasance in government and now I’m back in the university as a professor. The tendency to see things differently exists in every segment. It is the totality of these multiple experiences that should assist us in developing a problem solving approach. My own take is that we need to stop the blame game and work together in the interest of the vulnerable segment of our population. Everyone can see the point of the protest that was fuelled by the excruciating pain and immiseration in the land but we must also admit that the cost of living crisis is a global phenomenon. Yet, even as we say it is global, the crisis in Nigeria is contextual and historic  and it is also a crisis of values, a crisis of structure, a crisis of governance and a crisis of leadership and all of us have sinned. Time is however running out and we need the urgency of now to attend to the frustrations and despair in the country and if we don’t, we run the risk of being consumed by it.

 

Local government autonomy is another contentious issue. How best do you think the Supreme Court judgement should be implemented?

Honestly, I’m still trying to get my own head round that ruling and its portents. And the reason is not far-fetched. When I was Chairman of the Governors Forum, we were in court over pretty much the same issues with the last Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, I believe in 2021 on the implementation of Executive Order 10 which was pretty much seeking the same reliefs in the action brought by the current Attorney General. The Supreme Court ruled at that time, barely two years ago that without prejudice to the merit of the request brought by the Honourable Attorney General, the provision of Section 162 of the constitution cannot be varied in terms of its explicit provision for all revenues to go into the Federation Account and the provision of a Joint Accounts of States and Local Government to manage funds disbursed from the federation account. What appears to have happened in this case, save for Justice Abiru’s minority ruling, is a somersault in my humble opinion and it’s one that is bound to have serious implications for the workings of our federation. If the problem as outlined by the current Attorney General is true and I haven’t seen any proof of states shortchanging local governments of their legitimate funds as often claimed, I don’t believe the decision will solve the problem. In fact, in many states that I know, the Governors will be relieved because they will be saved from the monthly burden of having to augment local governments that could not meet their financial obligations. But beyond the relief, the danger to primary school teachers, primary health care workers, local government workers and traditional rulers’ emoluments is real, if we go by past experience. But I pray I’m proved wrong.

Having said the above, I completely endorse the part of the ruling on abrogation of caretaker committees and its insistence on elected local government officials. As a Governor who organised at least two local government elections during my time in office, I believe this is really a no brainer. Where I see a problem is the attempt, both surreptitious and overt, to return local election management to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). I see this as a return to unitarism. While I’m not oblivious of the inadequacies of some state electoral commissions, the solution is to strengthen them and hold them more accountable through measures introduced to guarantee unrestrained funding, improve appointments into the state electoral management bodies and introduce accountability mechanisms to strengthen their independence. The notion that INEC has a magic wand on clean and credible elections is a joke taken too far. But if it is the collective view of Nigerians that we should return to a unitary constitution, that should be allowed to be the product of the people’s debate. As a federalist though, I have a general concern with this surreptitious attempt to return Nigeria to the path of unitarism. So, to return to your question, I think the constitutional reform process should now be accelerated to address these lingering issues on how best to make Nigeria work in the interest of all Nigerians. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law and not to make laws. The process for law making is clearly laid out in the constitution and my plea is that this process should be expedited to address the lacuna that the Supreme Court ruling has now created which I am in no doubt would be difficult to implement, especially with regards to direct funding of local government. I’m a student of federalism and I have looked around the world. Most successful federations leave the creation, management and funding of local authorities in the hands of sub-national federating units and not in the hands of the central federating units. At best, the federal government gives grants to local government areas or counties as they are called in the USA. This new approach is a subversion of federalism or, if I want to be generous, Nigeria’s unique contribution to the theory of federalism. Indeed, there are scholars like Professor Richard Sklar who regards the so called three tier arrangement as Nigeria’s contribution to that theory. But in my view, it is unworkable. My final take on this is that we have now reached a point where LGs should be completely delisted and expunged from our constitution while states are left to determine local administration in line with their own local circumstances.

The pattern of the recent protests over hardship in the country gives a lot of people concerns on the future of Nigeria and its democracy. Do you also entertain such fears?

While there is every reason to be concerned about the protests and the risk it portends to the future of this democracy, I think it’s also a clarion call for concerted effort on the part of all stakeholders. This democracy has been forged in the crucible of protests and agitations for better governance and the President is not new to this, so protests are legitimate as long as they are not destructive. In my own opinion, all patriots must do their best to help the country and the leadership achieve stability and prosperity. There is no leader who goes out of his or her way to inflict pain on the citizens. And definitely, my knowledge of our president shows him as a leader with capacity for generosity of spirit. Equally,the point needs to be made that the regular Nigerian does not wake up thinking primarily about how to drive an ethnic, sectional, or religious agenda because we are all bearers of multiple identities. However, poverty and inequality, as they expand and ossify, have been known to feed into parochialisms, irredentism, and exclusionary ideologies of various kinds. These twin problems are at the heart of the crisis which we are witnessing all around us. They provide the underlying context for understanding why a seemingly innocuous protest degenerated to ethnic controversies, inter-generational discords and multifaceted criminality in some parts of the country. This is why leadership of a politically conscious and enlightened type is required. Unfortunately, as we politicians often discover to our chagrin, the reality is always different between running for office and running the office. Indeed, one of the first lessons I learned in my small leadership role is that leadership is not a solo effort but a team one. It is best exercised when it is underpinned with an appropriate infrastructure of policy, politics, and power. Its critical actions are best sustained not by the charisma of an omniscient president but by the broadness of the consensus that is built around him and the beneficial impact which they register.

So, if we must avert the fire next time and save ourselves from the wrath of our citizens, we all must work with the President and his team to achieve a change in values, a change of attitude and a change of approach to governance at all levels. The president must utilise the sheer force of personal example to inspire and motivate ordinary Nigerians and the rest of us must pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and support the president. Any other approach is a distraction from focusing on the real issues.

How have you been enjoying your time as a visiting professor at King’s College, London and why that choice of engagement?

Very much so. Actually in more mature democracies, what I’m doing is the norm rather than the exception. There’s always a revolving door between people who have served at the highest levels in government and the sharing of that experience with people in academia and the private sector. The opportunity allows one to see things more objectively than when you’re the man in the arena as President Theodore Roosevelt would say. It also gives one the opportunity to impart knowledge based on practical insights gained in office to a younger and not as jaded successor generation of young people who will sooner find themselves in critical leadership positions. It is only in Nigeria that politicians and citizens deprecate knowledge and denigrate scholarship – Na book we go chop  as many like to say. Personally, the position has allowed me the flexibility to do many things without losing touch with political society at home  – particularly teaching, research, reflection and writing. I’m also utilizing the time and space to prepare for the launch of my pan African policy think tank early next year that will bring together all of these exertions into one single whole aimed at promoting high level policy forums, intergenerational dialogues, leadership salons and training and mentorship opportunities.