Post on 28-Feb-2023
FEDERALISM AND MINORITY AGITATIONS IN NIGERIA: THE SOUTH-SOUTH MARGINALISATION QUESTION 1
BY
Samuel Chukwudi AGUNYAI, Temitayo Isaac ODEYEMI and Kayode WakiliOLAWOYIN
Department of Political Science,Obafemi Awolowo University Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Tel: 234-80-6091-7811, 234-70-6526-0752. E-mail:samora20032008@yahoo.com; odeyemiisaac11@gmail.com
Abstract
In every multi-ethnic society (Nigeria inclusive) fear of
domination, marginalization, subjugation and denial of rights,
particularly those of the minorities has often led to agitations
against obnoxious powers of the majority groups among others, have
its commonplace, but pervasive in the case of Nigeria’s federalism.
Successive Nigerian Governments have tried to practice federalism
that will promote equity and minorities’ rights, but they have
failed to practice this doctrine as stipulated in the constitution,
thereby raising the question of minority marginalization in
Nigeria. However, marginalization of the minority groups has been
the cause of agitations through violent militancy in recent time;
and that unless the government practice federalism as enshrined in
the constitution and properly engages the contending issues of
resource control, power sharing, equal rights and accountability,
the country will face minority agitations of increasing and
dangerous proportions. The paper therefore examines federalism, its
challenges and minority agitations for equity and development in1 Paper published by the Benue Journal of Social Sciences 2(1), pp. 77 – 95, September, 2014.
Nigeria and proffers suggestions that can enhance protection of
minorities’ rights and the practice of true federalism in Nigeria.
Keywords: Agitations, Federalism, Marginalisation Question,
Minority and South-South
Introduction
The intellectual discourse and research studies on federalism,
particularly in respect of minority agitations and marginalisation
question, is engendered mainly by the non-adherence to the
constitutional provisions for the practice of federalism and
sometimes domination or under-representation of the minority groups
in public affairs and institutions. Minority agitations have thus
provoked studies aimed at reversing such discrimination given the
immense role that can be played in national development by both
components of the groups (the minority and the majority).
Regardless of the nature and extent of defects that may
characterise federalism in Nigeria in theory and practice, it has,
for quite some time, come to represent an important element in the
country’s politics. Not unexpectedly, federalism has been subjected
to various critical analyses. The foregoing notwithstanding, not
much intellectual resources have been deployed in examining the
practice of true federalism as enshrined in the constitution, as a
vehicle for addressing minority agitations of the South-South
Region in the country.
The South-South Region is heterogeneous, multi-cultural,
ethnically diverse region of about 10 million people according to
the 2006 census. It covers an area of about 40,000 square
kilometres. About one third of this area is wetland, one of the
largest in the world, but certainly the largest in Africa. Over
sixty per cent of Nigeria’s mangrove forest, which is the third
largest in the world, is also found here, as are the most extensive
fresh water swamp forests in west and central Africa. Accordingly,
the South-South Region is rich in fishes and wildlife resources,
has a high biodiversity with many unique species of plants and
animals. More importantly, the region is famed for its large
deposits of non-renewable energy resources, particularly crude oil
and gas. Most of the country’s oil comes from this region. The
Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) alone has more than 90
active oil wells in the area. Production and exports of crude oil
from the region is about two million barrels a day, accounting for
well over 90 per cent of Nigeria’s total export earnings and around
80 per cent Federal revenue. It is also estimated that the value of
natural gas in the region when fully harnessed will exceed the
total economic benefits derived presently from the crude oil
(Nwachukwu, 1999:106, Ojeifa, 1999:257, Anebunam, 1999:140).
Accordingly, Nwachukwu (1999) gives a geo-political definition of
the region to include those states of Nigeria that border the
coastal waters of the Atlantic. These are the oil producing Akwa
Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo and Rivers.
The South-South Region, in spite of its natural resources
endowment in oil and gas is still very poor and deprived of some
basic necessities of lives and marginalised in certain political
office compared to other regions with little or no resources
contributing to the wealth of the country. The people in this
region are vastly neglected and oppressed not only by the
activities of oil exploration by multinational corporations but by
the insincerity on the part of government to adequately compensate
them for loss of their farmlands, sea, water system, displacement,
diseases suffered from oil spillage and gas flaring by the
government. An economy of conflict slowly emerged. By September,
1999, about 50 Shell workers had been kidnapped and released Arnold
(quoted in Omede and Akhanolu, 2013). Their motive of doing this was
very clear, “if they do not benefit from the oil output, then they
will stop the oil from being produced.” Then, there began a regime
of violent and armed resistance by youth militias and militant
groups principally in response to state repression and corporate
violence and as part of actions to compel concessions in respect
of regional autonomy, resource control and greater oil based
benefits. The region has since become the scene of the most
extensive military operations since the Nigerian civil war. The
essence of these protests and agitations was to show the world the
extent of inequity in South-South Region of the Nigerian federal
system.
The basic issue which this paper addresses in an exploratory
manner is to examine federalism within the context of minority
agitations for equal rights and equal representation in public
institutions and affairs. The basic questions: can frequent
minority agitations be checked or resolved through strict adherence
to constitutional provisions for the practice of true federalism in
Nigeria? If yes, to what extent, has the constitution been adhered
to? If not, what options are available? To ensure a systematic
approach to tackling these issues, the paper is discussed under six
headings. Conceptual clarification and perspectives of federalism
is discussed in section two. While challenges of federalism in
Nigeria, is presented in section three, minorities agitations in
Nigerian federal system is discussed in section four, Section five
presents causes and implications for minority agitations in
Nigerian federal system and section six concludes and makes policy
recommendations.
Conceptual Clarification and Perspectives of Federalism in Nigeria
Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between
the levels of governments in a country. In the same vein, A. V.
Dicey sees it as “a political contrivance intended to reconcile,
national unity with the maintenance right, Dicey (1959). From an
operational perspective, Ojo, (cited in Oshewolo, 2011) pointed out
that federalism is reputed to be an effective political-cum-
constitutional design for managing complex governmental problems
usually associated with ethnic and cultural diversity. Federalism in
the views of Mazrui (1971) is an institutionalization of compromise
relationship. It is not only democratic, complete with the
institutionalization of most essential ingredients; it is also
creative and flexible enough to incorporate several accommodation
formulas. Linking it up with the Nigerian situation, Agbu (2004)
viewed federalism from socio-economic angle and contends that the
contestation over federalism in Nigeria has manifested itself not
only in the quest for access and control over political but also as
access to federally generated revenue. This assertion best
describes the situation in the country’s South-South where the
people are clamouring for a considerable upward review in the
current 13 per cent derivation. However, in his effort to define
federalism, Wheare (cited in Ray, 2006) distinguishes between a
federal principle, a federal constitution and a federal government.
By the federal principle, it means ‘the method of dividing powers
so that the general and regional governments are each within a
sphere, coordinate and independent.’ A federal constitution is one
in which the federal principle is predominant. A federal government
is that which embodies predominantly a division of powers between
general and regional authorities each of which, in its own sphere,
is coordinate with others and independent of them. The explanation
given above shows a clear picture of what a federation looks like
(Ray, 2006).
Historically, Nigeria has its origin in 1914 when the
dominant protectorates were amalgamated by the British colonial
administration. The reasons attributed to the merging of the
Southern and Northern protectorates, were more of economic than
political. The Northern Protectorate which became the Northern
Province had annual budget deficits, while the Southern
Protectorate which became the Southern Province had surpluses. To
eliminate the subventions from the British treasury, the budgets of
the two components were integrated, (Barkan, et.al 2001). This
unification of the entity called Nigeria was continually affected
by attitudinal differences or perhaps the regional primordial
interests of the Northern and Southern provinces at the expense of
the civic interests which manifested in the way in which both
representatives of provinces fought for their province interests,
this view was however supported by the works of Barkan, et.al
(2001) where they contends that:
While southern colonial administratorswelcomed amalgamation as an opportunity forimperial expansion, their counterparts inthe Northern Province believed that it was
injurious to the interests of the areasthey administered because of their relativebackwardness and that it was their duty toresist the advance of southern influencesand culture into the north. Southerners,on their part, were not eager to embracethe extension of legislation originallymeant for the north to the south. Thesesame concerns persist across both north andsouth today.
It is important to note that the fear of being dominated by
other province or the gaps between them in terms of exposure,
western education, and imperial powers over the other prompted the
consensus that federalism might be a suitable doctrine or tool for
keeping Nigeria as a single political entity. And this to an extent
has proved to be productive as subsequent political developments in
Nigeria confirmed the federal solution as the best political
arrangement that could provide the compromises and assurances
necessary for advancement to political unity.These problems brought
about a great deal of hue and cry that people began to clamour for
the disintegration of the country. In a bid to save Nigeria from
the brink of disintegration and possibly unite all its
nationalities, federalism became the best option. Sir Abubakar
Tafawa Balewa while addressing the House of Representative, 10
September, 1957, said this of Federalism:
I am pleased to see that we are all agreedthat the federal system is, under thepresent conditions, the only sure basis onwhich Nigeria can remain united. We mustrecognize our diversity and the peculiarconditions under which the different tribalcommunities live in this country. To us inNigeria therefore, unity in diversity is agreat source of strength, and we must do
all in our power to see that this federalsystem of government is strengthened andmaintained.
From this statement, it can be deduced that federalism seems
to be the only tool or political arrangement that can bind together
all identities (ethnic or religious identities) in a plural state
like Nigeria. Federalism needs to be strengthened by its true
practice as stipulated in constitution that is, following strictly
what the constitution says rather than lip service practice.
However, the antecedent of federalism in Nigeria can be
traced to Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 which was the first
federal constitution of the country. The constitution was
promulgated to make Nigeria a full fledge federal state. That was
necessary because of the 'Eight point programme' passed in May,
1953 by the legislative council of Northern Region which would have
brought about a virtual succession of the Northern Region if it had
not been implemented. Under the constitution, legislative powers
were divided between the federal and regional legislature.
Consequently, the 1960 Independence Constitution provided and
retained the federal structure by recognising the three legislative
powers or lists namely, the exclusive, concurrent and residual
lists. The constitution stipulated that the principles of
federalism should not be thwarted by the executive powers of the
regional governments, rather, the power of the centre government
must over-rides that of the regions in a situation of
contradictions. Moreover, during the Republican era in 1963 the
constitution consolidated the federal structure as contained in the
1960 constitution (Barkan et.al, 2001).
The 1979 constitution recognised Nigeria as federal state and
adopted presidential system, as this was spelt out in its section
2(1) (2). It equally recognised three tiers of government namely
the federal, state and local government and stipulated separateness
and degree of autonomy for each level of government. The
constitution also advocated that the three levels of government
must work harmoniously and in unity for the sustenance of the
country’s federalism. The 1995 drafted constitution also in its bid
to retain federal principles tackles several contending issues that
shaped Nigerian federal system. The 1999 Constitution on the other
hand, provides for a presidential system of government at the
federal level and a directly elected executive at the state and
local levels. Political parties are required to be national in
character, as is the composition of the central government; the
President must receive at least a quarter of the vote in two-thirds
of the states to gain control of government. The basic flaw in the
constitution is that most of the powers accorded to the states in
the Second Schedule of the 1999 constitution are exercised
concurrently with the federal government. This situation has
caused confusion since the return to civilian rule and led to a
continuing debate over which tier of government, federal or state,
is best equipped to deal with various areas of policy (e.g.
secondary education). A related flaw is that while the functions
of local government are specified in the Fourth Schedule, local
government authorities (LGAs) can exercise their authority only in
accordance with enabling legislation passed by the states.
Depending on the specifics of this legislation—which varies from
state to state—LGAs is thus subject to varying degrees of state
oversight and control, (Barkan et.al 2001).
From the foregoing, it can be inferred that all successive
constitutions in Nigeria, have varying features of federalism and
each of them has been inputted by successive governments to address
prevailing contending issues in Nigeria, but the problems with
Nigeria’s federal state have always been multi-facets ranging from
non-compliance of political elites to the constitutional provisions
for the practice of federalism, ethnic rivalries, domination,
denial of minorities’ rights to more contending issues of resource
control, revenue sharing formula, and minorities’/majorities’
agitations for state creation. This will lead us to the challenges
of federalism in Nigeria.
Challenges of Federalism in Nigeria
There are a lot of contending issues that have been working
against the practice of true federal system in Nigeria. The military
elite who dominated the governance of the nation between 1966 and 1999
according to Ayokhai (2009) is largely held responsible for the distortion
and disarticulation of the federal system of government inherited from the
British., even the civilian governments have not done better in the
practice of federalism.
The argument is that Nigeria’s federalism is a façade, a ruse, and nominal
and as such a false federalism that is not in consonance with the
constitution (Ayokhai, 2009). Some of the challenges but not limited to
only these are explained thus:
The federal character principle in the views of yan and
Akindele (2002) essentially refers to the recognition of the plural
nature of the country in recruitment, distribution of
administrative and political offices and power as well as the
resources of the country. Federal character and its application is
another contentious issue in the Nigerian Federation. Federal
Character, which was a key provision in the 1979 Republic
Constitution, has been a major source of tension in Nigerian
Federalism. This principle was designed to enhance unity in
diversities but the reverse has been the case in contemporary
Nigeria; it has been subdued for the selfish interests of the
Senators and the members of the House of Representatives. Today in
Nigeria, applicants for government positions, military corps and
other political offices need to get a letter from members of
National Assembly(Senators or Representatives) without which, they
may not be recruited or appointed to public offices. Records and
observations have shown that national parliamentarians send their
lists of preferred candidates to ministries, agencies, and
government parastatals for job appointment. This has not only
undermined meritocracy and federal character, but the country’s
federalism. And this has thwarted the original purpose of the
principle which was meant to eschew group imbalance in public
institutions and affairs.
One of the problem of designing a federal system lies in the
domination of one group or state by the others, this view was
corroborated by Jinadu (1979), when he asserted that there is the
problem of how to design the federation in such a way as to prevent
an ethnic group or a combination of ethnic groups, or one state or
a combination of states, from perpetually dominating and imposing
their will on other ethnic groups. The general or perhaps an
overwhelming idea behind state creation is socio-economic
development, but in Nigeria’s federal state, several reasons have
been responsible for state creation, ranging from political,
economic, cultural, and social reasons, all in an attempt to
advanced unity, but today, state creation has been politicised by
greedy politicians and ethnic group’s leaders, who have always
hinged their developmental aspirations on ethnic identities, with
the majority ethnic groups having recorded much greater success in
this regard in relation to their minority counterparts. Looking at
Contemporary Nigeria, demands for creation of more states have been
forwarded to the National Assembly and in recent time the following
states have been proposed for creation: Okura out of Kogi; Aba from
Abia; Njaba and Orashi out of Imo; Adada from Enugu State; Toru-Ebe
from Delta, Edo and Ondo states; Hadejia out of Jigawa and Katagum
from Bauchi State. Similarly, there have been requests for the
creation of Tiga out of Kano State; Karadua and Kafur from Katsina
State; Lagoon from Lagos State; Oke-Ogun and Ibadan out of Oyo
State; Kwararafa from Taraba and Amana out of Borno. Some people
have also solicited the creation of Adamawa, Taraba and Savannah
states out of the current Adamawa State; Edu, Gurara, Kainji and
Borgu from Niger; Apa from Benue, New Delta from Delta and Oduduwa
out of Osun, among others,(“The imperatives of state creation”, 2013).
One may wonder why various ethnic groups across the country have
presented a plethora of requests for the creation of more states.
This paper however, observed that the sustained campaign for the
creation of more states in the country is not because those who
seek it, have passion for promoting development or unity of the
polity, nor they are demanding it for expansion of the scope and
platform for more citizens to express themselves and utilize their
potentials under a federal system of government, but it is largely
based on greed, and the need for some groups to have access to the
federation account for personal gains at the expense of the masses,
as some of the existing states in contemporary Nigeria are not
self-sustaining, but need to be consolidated rather than
duplicating them. This has remained a huge challenge to Nigeria’s
federal state. It is also of great importance to note that the
creation of states in the past have not been able to resolve
completely minority fear, domination or denial of their rights,
this view was in line with that of Lawal, (as cited in “The imperatives
of state creation”, 2013) when he said that:
The quest for states, as contained in the1958 Willink Commission Report, arose fromthe concern of minority groups that theirinterests were not protected in the thenNorthern, Western and Eastern Regions. Thereport correctly noted that states creationwould in fact not be a solution to thefears of minorities, as additional statesmay not guarantee the creation of anotherminority group in the new states.
Undoubtedly, state creation has not been without its positive
sides in the areas of proximity of government to the people,
economic growth and citizens’ participation; but the question of
marginalization of some groups (weaker or smaller groups) by the
majority groups such as the case of the South-South and the middle
belt group in Nigeria has equally been prevalent. Even within the
existing states, there are cases of one major group dominating the
other. For instance, the Ife-Modakeke crisis that threatened
Nigeria’s unity is caused by the fact that the Ifes’ the original
land owners wanted to chase the Modakekes’ out of their territory,
and the Modakekes’ on the other hand, felt that their rights were
being infringed or perhaps that they were unduly dominated by the
major ethnic group (Ife), hence, they agitated and fought to
protect their rights and territory. This however, portrays how the
quest for more states, which is borne out of demands for equal
rights, equal representation and development still remain a big
challenge to Nigeria’s federal state.
Table 1: History of State Creation in Nigeria
Year Number of States
Extent of State Autonomy
Type of Regime
1914 2 Very High Colonial1954 3 Very High Colonial1963 4 High Democratic1967 12 Low Military1976 19 Low Military1979 19 Medium Democratic1991 31 Low Military1996 36 Very Low Military1999 till date 36 Medium and
risingDemocratic
Adapted from the works of Barkan, et al (2001) on State and Local Government in
Nigeria.
It can be reasonably inferred that states created during
colonialism had more autonomy than states created by the military
and democratic governments in Nigeria. It was also observed from
the table that the military governments created more states than
the civilian government and this led to conceding of oil from
South-South Region to the control of the federal government,
leaving the region with little control over their resources
(Ikelegbe, 2005).
One other challenge of the Nigeria federation is that the fiscal
power has become too centralised on the Federal Government which
continue to distribute resources, favours and sanctions as it
wishes, while most of the thirty-six states and the Local
Governments are mere appendages of the centre that cannot survive
without federal allocations. The revenue sharing formula has always
been skewed to favour the centre government over the regions except
for the First Republic where states had dominant power over monies
in the federation accounts. The states government in recent times
have sought for ways of increasing their share of the federation
money, but the federal government has remained passive over such
agitations, and this constituted no small amount of heated
arguments, antagonism and disagreements between the federal and
state governments in Nigeria’s federal state.The debate over the
allocation of federal revenues according to Barkan, et al (2001) is
both continuous and intense, because it is fundamentally a debate
over how much power will be effectively held by each tier in the
federal system. In 1994, the Abacha administration agreed that the
oil producing states should retain 13 percent of all oil revenues
thus re-establishing the principle of derivation. The re-
establishment of the derivation principle, however, was not
implemented until 2000 after the handover to the new civilian
government. Notwithstanding this change, the allocation formula
among the three tiers of government of all federally collected
revenues distributed after derivation remains at 48.5 percent for
the federal government, 24 percent to the states, 20 percent to
local government, with 7.5 percent retained for “special”, i.e.
federally determined projects. The leaders of both state and local
governments insisted that the percentages allocated to their tiers
be raised given their responsibilities. This issue has continued to
linger and generate hot arguments between the federal government
and other tiers of government in Nigeria, (Barkan, et al, 2001).
Table 2: Commissions and Revenue Sharing Formula in Nigeria
YEAR COMMISSION ALLOCATION OF THE FEDERATION ACCOUNTFGN STATES* LGAs SPECIAL
PROJECTS
DERIVATIONFORMULA**
1958 Raisman 40 60 0 0 501968 Dina/Gowon 80 20 0 0 101977 Aboyade 75 22 3 0 101982 Okigbo 55 32.5 10 2.5 101989 Babangida 50 24 15 11 101995 Abacha 48.5 24 20 7.5 132001 Obasanjo 48.5 24 20 7.5 13
Adapted from the works of Barkan, et al (2001) on State and Local Government in
Nigeria.
* - The portion of the Federation Account allocated to the States
has been done on the basis of five criteria: equality (equal shares
for all states), population, social development, land mass and
terrain, and internal effort at generating own revenue.
Historically, the bulk of the allocation (usually 70%) has been on
the basis of equality and population.
**- The derivation formula is the percentage of the revenue states
retain from taxes on oil and other natural resources produced
within their states.
Nigerian federal state since the 80’s has witnessed various
ethnic uprisings such that decades of peaceful co-existence have
given way to ethnic identities and conflicts. Cases of these
violent ethnic clashes are legion. They include, Zango-Kataf
(1987),Tiango-Waduku, Tiv-Jukun (existing since 1962), Jukun-Kuteb,
Aguleri-Umuleri (1999), Yoruba-Hausa/Fulani, Ife-Modakeke (existing
from the late 20th century), Ijaw-Itsekiri, and pockets of
religious disputes witnessed in other parts of the country
particularly that of Plateau State that has continually threatened
Nigeria’s political system and has seriously gain attention of the
government, Ojakorotu (quoted in Akpomuvire, 2000). Even in this
democratic dispensation where the principles of federalism were
initially thought to be more disposed to mediating the country’s
diversities peacefully, ethno-religious conflicts have been more
predominant, serving as a threat to national progress and national
unity and stability of Nigeria. It is important to note that ethno-
religious conflicts in this era have been further heightened by the
citizen/indigene syndrome; land ownership and the indigene/settler
debacle have always generated security concern in the country,
particularly in the Fourth Republic. Even within the same ethnic
group, the problem of who owns the land, who is an indigene and who
is a settler, are sources of violent disputes, (Adeyeri, 2012).
The contending issues of denying the minorities their rights
and their domination would have been lessening if not overlooked,
but for corruption and loss of integrity that has eaten deep into
the federal system of Nigeria. The minority groups of the south-
south ordinarily, may have been able to cope with infringement on
their rights, if not the cases of news of how resources (crude oil)
from their backyards are carted away to enrich some few Nigerian
political elites and that monies realised from their region is
lavished and looted by some few elites who in the name of
representatives (both Senators, members of Federal House of
Representatives, Ministers of Petroleum, community leaders, and
sometimes officials of oil companies, and youths leaders) have
enriched their families, leaving the communities of the sources of
the country’s revenue largely underdeveloped. The federal
government became an over-bloated bureaucratic system due to the
concentration of too many resources to the centre (Adeola, 2008).
In Nigeria, corruption is noticed in every facet of the society and
it can be as bad as depicted by Hon. Ghali Umar Na’ Abba, former
Speaker of Nigeria’s House of Representatives when he declared in
2003 that:
While we cannot rule out the incidence ofcorruption and bribery in almost everyfacet of our society, it is particularlyresident in the infrastructure areas inministries or monopolistic parastatalssaddled with the task of makinginfrastructure available to the public –water, telecommunication, electricity(NEPA), roads and railways (NRC),(U.N.Ghali, interview session, 2003)
From the foregoing, it can be said that corruption remains
as a big problem in Nigerian federal state; it has robbed the
minority group of the south-south their rights to community
development, as monies meant for the development of some states in
the Niger-Delta region have either be misappropriated or siphoned
for private benefits by their representatives. In this regard, it
is worthy of note that financial scandals exposed in the Fourth
Republic involved several political elites and government
institutions. For example, former Governor of Delta State and
other Governor’s cases of financial frauds involved the laundering
of billions of naira under different names in different banks.
Similar method was also employed by government officials involved
in Niger-Delta Development Commission (a government body created
to focus on the acceleration of development in the oil producing
states of Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Ondo, Abia, Imo, Edo
and Cross River) a reference to the shameful fraud involving the
looting of funds allocated for development in the oil producing
Niger-Delta region, and other financial scandals that rocked the
Fourth Republic across the Local, State and Federal Government
units, including the Presidency (Adeyeri, 2012).
Minorities (South-South) Agitations in Nigerian Federal System
Marginalization Question
The paper observes that Nigeria’s federalism is
characterized by marginalization where virtually every geo-
political zone complains of one form of deprivation or the other.
In an attempt to reveal the extent to which marginalization has
affected minority groups in Nigeria, scholars have different
interpretations for it, for instance, Ojukwu (2005), in his views
sees marginalization as a state of relative deprivation, a
deliberate disempowerment of a people by a group or groups that,
during a relevant time frame, wields political power and control
the allocation of material and other resources at the center. In the
same vein, Obianyo (2003) reveals that marginalization depicts
neglect, non-involvement or inequality in the distribution of the
socio-economic and political resources of the state or indices of
development. Borrowing a leaf from this premise, Akinbade (2004)
sees marginalization as a denial of access to political power or
social amenities to a group or region while dispensing favour to
the advantage of others. He went further to say that this is
predominant in Nigeria where every group (majority or minority)
protest of being marginalized, for instance the Northern Region
have started complaining of being marginalized from presidency
position, while the south-south are clamoring for resource control
that has for long eluded them. This ultimately reveals that the
country’s resources are not evenly distributed and that
marginalization gives rise to other contending issues such as
oppression, domination, accusations and allegations of neglect,
exploitation, victimization, discrimination, nepotism, and bigotry
among others. For Agbu (2004) ethnic minority politics has
basically relegated the minorities to dominated or subordinated
groups who often times take solace in engaging in ‘spoiler
politics’. Little wonder, many of these groups are in the
forefront of the calls for a restructuring of the Nigerian
federation.
The revelation given above explains the role played by
ethnicity or ethnic politics in encouraging marginalization in
Nigeria. The position maintained by Angaye (2003) is that conflict
occurs when deprived groups or individuals attempt to increase
their share of power and wealth or to modify the dominant values,
norms, beliefs or ideology. Emphatically, when a group begins to
nurse the feelings of strangulation, emasculation and
discrimination, agitations may ensue. It is now a known fact that
agitations by ethnic minority groups, particularly in the South-
South, over federal allocation, resource control, compensation for
environmental degradation, diseases contacted through gas flaring
arising from oil exploration, and political marginalization, appear
to be the greatest challenge to federalism in Nigeria, in recent
times. Crude oil, the major sources of revenue in Nigeria’s mono-
cultural economy, has been a source of persistent discontent and
turmoil since the colonial era. The South-South protests and agitations is premised on antique
dialectics, which implies that the agitations actually predates era of
independence of Nigeria, Aghalino (quoted in Oshewolo, 2011). As noted
by Lea and Young (cited in Oshewolo, 2011), the agitations stems from
widespread marginalisation evidently seen in areas of social
deprivations, underdevelopment of the area and injustices including
the sharing of government revenue allocation, poor infrastructure or
appointment to choice public positions. With this situation, the
people began to perceive a profound sense of marginalization and
alienation from the realities of a prosperous nation whose wealth is
derived from the soil of the South-South people. Akpan (quoted in
Oshewolo, 2011) gives an economic dimension to the political question
of marginalization by associating with the economic relations that
have evolved from the current resource ownership and control regime.
The factors underlying how the South-South Region is marginalised vis-
à-vis other regions in the country presented below.
Undue deprivation of the host communities where crude oil are
derived constituted a major area of marginalisation of the South-South
Region. For a very long time this region is known to produce the
wealth that keeps Nigeria as a country as one of the leading oil
producers in the world, yet this region is denied of all basic
necessities of lives such as good infrastructures, health centres,
water, electricity and destruction of farmlands belonging to the
people of South-South. Corroborating this view, Ifeka (2001) contends
that the basis for the struggle is the enormous deprivation been
experienced by the host communities. Moreover, the inequalities in the
distribution of power, wealth and status, and domination and
oppression by bigger groups and their collaborators within the smaller
groups have frustrated the minority people of the South-South (Angaye,
2003). Their doggedness to resolve this anomaly has set the country on
a keg of gunpowder.
Also, unjust and criminal exploitation of God-given natural
resources of the people of South-South to their detriment is one other
area of manifestation of marginalisation in the region. It is no more
news that South- South Region do not have power to control resources
within their territory rather political elites in other regions
dictates and determines how these wealth are shared. Ekong (2004),
however reiterated that the South-south geo-political zone has over
the years remained the goose that lay the golden egg. Paradoxically it
also remained the worst developed even by Nigerian standard.
Irrespective of its being the economic lifeline of the Nigeria
project, there seem to be a deliberate political will to perpetually
put the South-South down. Yet, its economic importance which dates
back to the colonial era cannot be over emphasised. Its role as the
catalyst in the trade of palm produce and groundnut between Nigeria
and Europe before independence earned it the Oil Rivers. The South-
South Region was therefore an indispensable and vocal entity prior and
after the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates,
which gave birth to Nigeria in 1914. Though it has also ironically
remained an object of political emasculation in the contraption called
Nigeria. While the list of deprivation remains inexhaustible, the
people of the South-South have continued to wallow in poverty and
threat of extinction, following the inhuman exploitation of their
resources (Ekong, 2004).
According to Ikelegbe (2005), the Northern hegemony taking
benefit of military repression began a regime of near complete
arrogation of the South-South oil resources through an intense control
and concentration of power and resources in the Federal government.
Oil resources were a major target. By different decrees, oil and gas
became owned by the Federal government and progressively, the regions
entitlements by way of derivation based allocation, declined from 50%
to a mere 1.5% in 1984 and later 3% in 1999. Further, the region was
marginalized and in fact neglected in the developmental efforts that
followed massive oil revenues. The region, according to Ikelegbe
(2005), was one of the least developed and poorest by the 1990s. But
more unfortunately, increasing oil exploration had made the region
economically and socially prostrate, due to extensive environmental
degradation and ensuring socio-economic disruptions and poverty
Agbamu, (quoted in Omede and Akhanolu, 2013).The circumstance led to a slow heightening of the second
struggle from a mild renewal of agitation in the 1970s; to a wide
spread community based protest in the 1980s. By the 1990s, the region
was mobilized enough by a flowering of civil society, intense identity
mobilization and ethnic nationalism, community activism and youth
mobilization to commence a broad regime of extensive active
resistance. Further, what began as mere articulation by the regions
elites had become a mass protest whose content of demands, methods,
and strategies of struggle had been transformed considerably (Omede
and Akhanolu, 2013).
Politically, though in recent years the South-South region
has had representation at the presidency level and fairly
represented in other political offices, but for a very long time it
was on record that people of the South-South were marginalised from
occupying public offices unlike other regions. Ekong (2004), in his
expression of the extent of marginalisation of the South-South
Region politically contended that:
The most worrisome of all this is the outrageous manner with whichthe three majority tribes view political offices in the land. Theyliterally arrogate to themselves, the exclusive preserve of theoffice of the President and other most prestigious appointments,irrespective of the federal character principle.
In addition, Briggs (2013), the spokesperson of the Ijaw
Republic Assembly in an interview contends that:
Talking about marginalization politically, I would say it is aPeoples’ Democratic Party government that is there. I’m not amember of that party. Most of these appointments are made andNigerians seem to accept them based on political positioning. So,if they are talking about political marginalization, is it thattheir people are not in power? The fact is that what they arereally saying is that the oil money is not trickling down. We arethe major complainants of the oil money not trickling down. Look atthe state of the Niger Delta. We are politically marginalized too.Look at the call for Jonathan to be removed. He has not even servedtwo years out of a four-year term and they are saying he shouldhand over power. The types of issues people are raising in thiscountry are distracting. Look at the North saying that it is theirturn, that Jonathan signed a paper with them. That’s how they saidformer President Olusegun Obasanjo, signed a paper with them. Whereis the paper Obasanjo signed with them? Is government by contract?Is Nigeria not owned by Nigerians? Why would a handful of people
just wake up and decide that 160 million of us can do whatever welike as long as they get themselves into power. If they are notthere, then they are marginalized. If they are marginalized, whatwould the Niger Delta people say then? Now everybody is fightingJonathan. Will he now put the people that are fighting him there?The ones he has put there what have they done? (Briggs, 2013).
Socially, the South-South Region is also marginalized in
terms of poor social facilities, environmental degradation, oil
spillage, polluted water system among others. Social amenities in
other regions are provided with the wealth derived from the South-
South Region, but in spite of these wealth and resources the region
remain largely impoverished. Briggs (2013), ask the following
questions while explaining the state of marginalization in the
South-South Region: where is our East-West Road? Where is the
empowerment with oil wells and things that some people got from
other governments and things that some northerners got when the
North was in position? Where is our own? It is important to note
that government and the legislature only sit in far inland (Abuja)
to legislate over the affairs of the South-South people without
understanding the problems of the South-South territory where
communications are so difficult, building so expensive and
education so scanty (Ekong, 2004). Despite the presence of huge
wealth in this region, infrastructural facilities in most parts of
the South-South appear to be at the primordial levels. As Aluko
(quoted in Omede and Akhanolu, 2013), sums up the problem:
ecological disasters arising from oil exploration have laid the
land waste. They make it difficult, even impossible at times to
have potable drinking water and passable road network. Pollution
from incessant oil spillages, together with other hazards of oil
exploration and exploitation, has made fishing, the lifeline of
most inhabitants of the area, almost impracticable and
unprofitable. Spillage also destroys fishing nets worth several
thousands of naira. All these have had a negative impact on the
quality of life of the average person in the South-South. The
people felt dispossessed and are alienated from the polity (Tell
Magazine, March 16, 2009:19). All these goes to show that the
South-South Region is marginalized politically, socially and
economically in spite of the fact that this region has been the
stronghold of the country’s wealth.
The Causes and Implications for Minority agitations in Nigeria’s
Federal System
The factors underlying the struggle and frequent agitations
by the minority groups who often stage protests when they feel that
their rights are denied or when their citizenship is threatened are
listed below:
A major underlying factor is the displacement of the traditional
occupations of the people in the region. As observed by Akpan, (in
Oshewolo, 2011), the dispossession of their land and waters by oil
companies has created inherently endemic unemployment among the
members of those communities previously engaged in traditional
occupations. This has entrenched poverty and dualized the economic
classes in oil producing areas along the lines of a high-income
economy with good economic infrastructures and social amenities and
a contrasting subsistent income traditional sector with a high
level of unemployment and a deteriorating environment. In the same
vein, Fiakpa, (in Oshewolo, 2011) lamented that:
…The wealth from its bowels has made thenation’s skyscrapers, expressways andhousing estates possible, but the only talefrom the South-South is that of neglect.With this state of affairs, lack of jobs,non-siting of industries and a near lack ofinfrastructure, the region has becomesynonymous with squalor and poverty.
Another cogent reason for agitations is environmental
degradation. The entire South-South area are linked together by
water channels, and it is largely observed that heavy rains and
disasters caused by occasional natural floods, oil spills and gas
flaring have negative impacts( such as air-borne diseases) that are
easily spread throughout the entire region through the relief and
climatic factors as conveyance vehicles. According to Naess, (in
Oshewolo, 2011), identifies the biocentric and anthropocentric
approaches to the sustainable development of the environment. The
biocentric approach emphasised on spoilt environment revived
through just compensation. In any case, just compensation and
resource efficiency are far from been realized. Thus, environmental
degradation persists despite decades of protests and reform
attempts. The anthropocentric approach to human condition within
the natural world is based on pursuit of resources to amass wealth
to the neglect of the environment. The emergence of multi-national
corporations in the South-South and the vested interest of the
federal and some state governments are good examples of the second
approach.
Corruption is another object for agitations in the South-
South. The rise in the rate of corruption among government
officials in Nigeria can also be linked to high prevalence of
agency or commission activities that are associated with the large
proportion of the resources controlled by the government.
Corruption has not only become institutionalized but also
glamourized in Nigeria as a result of overconcentration of
resources to the centre. It is equally noted that a typical
Nigerian politician has always had appetite for sharing of national
cake than good governance. Aristotle, the great philosopher and
intellectual colossus, consequently points out that the source of
revolutions and sedition is usually the image of the government and
that care would have to be taken to prevent offices from being used
for personal gain (see Murkherjee and Ramaswamy, 2007). Joseph
(1991) reveals that such corruption can be referred to as
‘prebendal politics’. This means using public positions (for
example, Chairmen and officers of Niger-Delta Development
Commission have used the office to amass wealth, leaving the area
largely underdeveloped) for primitive accumulation of wealth and
personal aggrandizement.
To address these contending issues, peaceful protests have been
carried out in past decades to show their grievances, but today
these peaceful protests of the previous decades consequently gave
way to violent militancy. In recent years, the agitations have
become increasingly militant and radical, including calls for self-
determination and outright secession, all of which have had
negative socio-political and economic effects on the country’s
federal system (Oshewolo, 2011).
The agitations of some groups especially the minorities has had
no small negative effects on Nigeria’s political system, its
negative effects outweighs the positive implications. Some of these
negative implications were explained in the work of (Oshewolo,
2011) as thus:
First, the violent confrontations constitute a serious threat to
personal freedom and the security of lives and property. This is
because the activities of ethnic militias often caused widespread
killings and destruction of property, while government’s responses
to the crisis through military operations led to civilian deaths
and the destruction of many communities with its attendant socio-
economic consequences.
Second, violent agitations have also resulted in huge loss of
national revenue due to large-scale vandalization of oil
facilities, disruption of oil exploration, and widespread oil
bunkering.
Third, increased violence in the Niger Delta has undermined
Nigeria’s international image, as many outsiders hold the general
view that security has broken down in the country as a whole and
not in the Delta region alone.
It is however important to note that marginalisation
question is not peculiar only to the minority group, but sometimes
to majority group in Nigeria. For instance, the Igbos; a major
ethnic group has been marginalised from the post of presidency for
a long time, even in this contemporary time, under the current
political system, the Igbo ethnic group is still not considered for
the presidential post. This post has been largely dominated by the
Hausa/Fulani ethnic group, than any other groups except for the
Yoruba ethnic group (South-West) who occupied it once or twice.
Today, the Northerners are already agitating for the post, because
of their feeling of being marginalised; this however has
constituted and will continue to constitute serious challenge to
Nigeria federal system if not properly addressed by the leaders.
Drawing examples from the general election of 2011, where parts of
the north were in comatose because a man from the minority group
was declared the president. It should be unequivocally stated that
these challenges notwithstanding, federalism remains the best
option for Nigeria because the principle accommodates the interests
of culturally diverse people.
Conclusion
The true practice of federalism in Nigerian states has been
pervasive and faulted with undue marginalization of the minority
groups. The degree of marginalization of this group, however,
differed from one state to another. The discriminatory practices of
federalism have had considerable impact on minority groups’ rights
in the political sphere tilting the pendulum in outrageous
disfavour to the minority groups of South-South. Against this
background, we examined the importance of the practice of true
federal system in resolving frequent minority agitations and group
inequity in Nigeria. It is our contention that true federalism can
be helpful in this direction. Nevertheless, we observed some
challenges and proffered solutions to them.
Finally, we have also argued that for an effective and quick move
towards practice of true federalism to address agitations and
promote group equity a multi-pronged approach requiring a
combination of factors need to be adopted. To this end, emphasis
should be laid on, inter alia, creating in political elite’s mind a
positive attitude towards true practice of federalism in Nigeria
and discouraging practices that are ethnic bias against the
minority groups, particularly those that are antithetical to their
participation in public affairs and political process. We need to
add that the practice of true federalism as enshrined in the
constitution requires concerted and sustained effort. Considerable
success in a twinkle of an eye may require perseverance considering
the multi-ethnic and cultural diversities in the country.
Suggestions for further Research
The federal system as it playing out is a tool in the hands
of the few political elites to cause disunity, and amass wealth
instead of unity in diversity. In fact the practice of federalism
as it is currently done in Nigeria has trampled on all the features
of good governance, therefore, the expected dividends and promising
benefits of being a federal state has been systematically eroded.
In order to restore the promise of federalism as the tool for
peace, unity and equity among varying ethno-religious groups in the
country, a number of recommendations are put forward.
To enhance true federalism in Nigeria, there should be
clear-cut constitutional arrangements that would guarantee adequate
fiscal and political powers for the regional states and local
governments to allow them operate as viable units of
administration, rather than mere appendages of the central
government.
On the states creation, we suggest that states be created in
line with the constitutional provisions rather than motives and
desires of political elites. This is to accord legitimacy to the
newly created states and reduce the domineering tendencies of the
major ethnic groups and secured some measure of autonomy, freedom
and enhances the fundamental rights of the minority groups. For the
practice of Federal character principle, it is recommended that
Nigerian government and stakeholders should henceforth, permit the
true practice of this principle to reflect ethnic group balance
rather than honouring letters from eminent political elites.
Today, the cause of the violent agitations and protests of
the South-South, or the frequent disagreement between the federal
and the states is the adoption of fiscal centralism (that is, the
control of the country’s revenue at the centre) as against fiscal
federalism originated by the military (see Agbu, 2004; Adeola,
2008).The revenue sharing formula is long over-due for review if
not total change, this is because the economy realities of states
and Local governments in Nigeria is changing every day and the
current formula (52.68% for the federal government), (26.72% for
the states) and (20.6% for the LGAs) can no longer meet the
realities of today at both state and local government level.
Therefore, we suggest that the idea of giving more money from the
federation account to the federal government (a single unit), at
the expense of (36) states and (774) local governments that seems
to have much responsibilities and service to offer the people,
because of their close proximity to the grassroots should be
critically looked at by Revenue Mobilization Allocation and fiscal
Commission (RMAFC) and other stakeholders for more revenue share to
be given to lower tiers of governments.
References
Adeola, G. T. (2008). Military Legacies and the Challenge of Managing Diversitiesin Nigeria’s Federation. A Paper Presented to the 20th SummerUniversity Programme of the Institute of Federalism, Fribourg,Switzerland.
Adeyeri, O. (2012). Nigerian State and the management of oil minority conflicts in the Niger Delta: A retrospective view, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations Vol. 6(5), pp. 97-103.
Agbu, O (2004). Re-Inventing Federalism in Post-Transition Nigeria: Problems and Prospects. Africa Development, Vol. XXIX, No. 2, pp. 26- 52.
Akinbade, J. A (2004). Dictionary of Nigerian Government and Politics. Lagos: Macak Books Ventures.
Angaye, G (2003). 'Causes and Cures of Conflicts in Nigeria.' Retrieved 21st August, 2013
http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/garticles/causes_and_cures_of_conflicts_in.htm
Anyaegbunam, E. O (1999). “Niger Delta: A Case for RegionalContingency Plan” in Akinjide
Osuntokun ed. Environmental Problems of the Niger Delta. Lagos:Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
Ayokhai, F.E (2009, July). The Practice of true federalism in Nigeria and the Niger- Delta question. Paper presented at the 6th Annual National Conference of NASHER on Leadership and Accountability in Nigeria at the Indoor Theatre, University of Abuja, Abuja.
Barkan, J.D., Gboyega, A., & Stevens, M. (2001). State and Local Government Creation.
Programme of public sector and capacity building, African Region. The World Bank.
Dicey A.V. (1959) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn.), London: Macmillan Press.
Ikelegbe, A. (2005) “Engendering Civil Society: Oil, Women groupsand Resource Conflicts in the
Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.” The Journal of Modern African Studies,Cambridge, June Vol. 43, p. 241.
Jinadu, L. A. (1979). 'A Note on the Theory of Federalism', in Akinyemi, A. B et al (eds) Reading on Federalism, Lagos: NIIA.
Joseph, R (1991). Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria, the Rise and fall of the Second Republic. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Mazrui, A (1971). Pluralism and National Integration', in Kuper, L andSmith, M. G (eds) Pluralism in Africa, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mukherjee, S and Ramaswamy, S (2007). A History of Political Thought, Plato to Marx. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
Natufe, O. I (2001). Resistance Politics: An Essay on the Future of Nigeria. A Paper Presented at the International Conference on the Challenges and Opportunities of Globalization at the Dawn of the Millennium, organized by the African Studies Program, Howard University, Washington DC, USA, April 11 - 14.
Nwachukwu, C. O. (1999) “Environment, Food and Agriculture Dynamics: Development policy
implications for Natural Resources Exploration and Exploitationin the Niger Delta, Wetlands Wildlife and Biodiversity Region of Nigeria.” An Akinjide Osuntokun ed., Environmental Problems of Niger Delta. Lagos: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
Obianyo, N. E. (2007). Citizenship and Ethnic Militia Politics in Nigeria, Marginalization or Identity Question? The Case of MASSOB. Being a Paper Presented at the 3rd Global Conference on Pluralism, Inclusion and Citizenship, Salzburg, Austria, November 18-19.
Obiyan, S.A. & Akindele, S.T. (2002). The Federal Character Principle and Gender Representation in Nigeria. Journal of social sciences, 6(4): 241-246
Ojakorotu, V. (2010) Ethnic conflict at the local government level and its implication on Nigeria’s external image: the case of Niger delta. In M. Akpomuvire (ed.), Institutional Administration: A contemporary local government perspective from Nigeria. Lagos: Malthouse press.
Ojeifia, Innocent E. (1999). “The Nigerian State and the Environmental Question” in Osuntokun,
Akinjide (1999). Environmental Problems of Niger Delta. Lagos: Fredrick Ebert Foundation
Ojukwu, C. C. (2005). 'The Politics of Integration and Marginalization in Nation-Building: The Igbo Question in NigerianPolitics.' UNILAG Journal of Politics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 130 - 153.
Omede, J. D and Akhanolu, I. O (2013). Economic Marginalisation inSome Selected States in the
Niger Delta. Journal of Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 3 (11)pp.61-71
Oshewolo, S. (2011). Politics of Integration and Marginalization in a Federation: The South-South Question in Nigerian Politics. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 2, No. 2.1
Tell Magazine, March 16, 2009.
“The imperatives of state creation” (2013, May 17). Vanguard, Friday, May 17,2013. Retrieved
July 11, 2013 from www.vanguardngr.com%2F2013%2F05%2F-the-imperatives-of-state-creation%2F%amp; _fb_nonscript=1”