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”