Citizenship And Democratisation In Nigeria: The Amaechi’s Example

Contd from Wednesday

Having situated this,

let us turn our critical search light on citizenship in post independence Nigeria.

Having found the ‘political kingdom’ which Fanon (1963: 27) described as “replacement of a certain ‘species’ of men by another ‘species’ of men”, Nigerian leaders failed to actualize their vaunted pledges such as equality, freedom from poverty and oppression, self-determination, and so on made during the struggle for independence. They indeed, lacked the political good will to sooth the pains of the dichotomisation of Nigeria citizenship and created an enabling environment needed to exercise their full citizenship rights which will guarantee a decent and sustainable livelihood for all and a brighter future. They rather concentrated their energies on how to encourage and sustain class and ethnic interest at the expense of national interest, national integration and nation building.

The emergence of the ‘military Junta’ on the Nigerian political chess board was not altogether a perfect panacea to the problem of citizenship in Nigeria. The military ascendancy, reminds any discernable observer of the colonial dislocation and authocratic rulershp. Essentially, the prolonged military dictatorship failed to provide an adequate policy or  principle that would have adequately tackled the citizenship question and real national integration in the country. The country again witnessed the resurrection of identity politics, nationality agitation, ethnic, religious and minority tensions.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to point out that some proactive measures have been taken by successive Nigerian leaders in the spirit of full citizenship and national integration. Such measures include: the             Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation programme, the establishment of unity schools, the National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, the creation, of states and local government areas, the establishment of Joint Admission and Matriculation Board, JAMB (now unified Tertiary Matriculation Examinations / UTME), the ethical revolution, war Against Indiscipline WAI (which Abacha later turned to War Against Indiscipline and Corruption, WAI-C) Mass Mobilization for Self-Reliance, Social Justice and Economic Recovery, MAMSER, National Reconciliation Committee, NARECOM, National Orientation Agency, NOA, Vision 2010, the National Rebirth, Human             Rights Abuse  Investigation Committee,  Poverty Alleviation programmes, the National Political Reform Conferences, (CONFAB), the establishment of EFCC, ICPC, the “Rebranding” campaigns, among others.

Sadly enough, it is observed that most of these approaches failed to create the social harmony needed for harmonious co-existence in Nigeria’s fifty one year of nationhood. At the root of all these is the dichotomy of ‘indigene’ and the ‘citizen’ or the “citizenship question”. For instance, in 1994, the appointment of a Hausa man as the Chairman of the Caretaker Management Committee of Jos North Local Government was opposed by the ingenuous ethnic communities. The simple reason was that the chairman so appointed was a Hausa man, a non-indigene, who is not considered suitable for the exalted position at the neglect of the ‘sons of the soil’. In the same token, the September 7, 2001 ethnic religious violence was the result of attempt by these ethnic groups to protest the appointment of another Hausa man as the co-ordinator of the Federal Government initiated Poverty Alleviation programme in the city of Jos North Local Government (CFCR,2002: 78).

It is also regrettable to note that in this democratic dispensation, there are certain phrases and clauses in the constitution that are acting against the workability and entrenchment of citizenship in Nigeria. The diversity in unity a national philosophy as well as constitutional theory in an attempt to accommodate cultural pluralism bestowed on individual or groups indigeneship rights. These involve, among others, preferential treatments which exist in the guise of federal character, goals, quotas, reservations; catchment areas, etc for indigenes of ethnic groups in jobs, university admission, land  ownership, housing and contracts, to mention just these.

Specifically, the Federal Character clause enshrined in the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, involves the utilization of proportionality or quota to guide certain type of public political appointments, employment and promotions in the public service of the federation and in admission to federal secondary and tertiary institutions (section 14, sub-section 3 and section 277, sub-section l).This is also applicable to appointments of chairman and members of parastalals and other juicy positions (section 157, sub-section 5 and section 197, sub-section 199).

More worrisome is the fact that these policies have given rise at the state level to demand for preferential policies which they hoped would protect them from being relegated to extinction thereby becoming an ‘endangered species’ by the dominant majority groups migrating into their states for social, political and economic interests. This is more serious in urban areas as well as in economically advanced states which have attracted population from all states.

The consequence, just as CFCR (2002:3) aptly observed is that millions of Nigerians who find themselves in ‘effective’ residency in places where they can claim ‘indigeneity’ or were they can be accepted as indigenes are labelled as ‘strangers and settlers’. Nigerians so defined are subjected to all kinds of exclusions and deprivations, which differentiate them from “natives” and members of the ‘host communities’. What goes immediately is to place obstacles on the part of Nigerians who are so labelled from the enjoyment of their fill citizenship rights which are formally guaranteed in elaborate provisions in the constitutions regarding the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

Indeed, as one moves out of his / her local governments of origin where he/ she can lay claim to and authenticate his/ her status as an indigene, the quality of citizenship diminishes.

The action of some state governors are making mockery of the government’s good intention to better situate full citizenship in Nigeria like other countries of the world. Most of them are obsessed with ethnic or state interest at the neglect of full citizenship that would bridge the chasm between unity and Nigeria’s various ethnic nationalities. A classic example of this fractured, divided, or differentiated citizenship is the action perpetrated by the governor of Abia State, Mr. Theodore Orji. He mandated all non- indigenes in his state civil service to vacate their various official posts. Ostensibly, this is done to purge the sate civil service of ‘stranger elements’ or ‘non- native~ or to absorb the ‘indigenes’ in their place. For what so ever reasons that may have prompted this barbaric and unreasonable action, the act is wholly condemnable as it is anti-modern and anti- democratic. Although, Mr. Orji after a second thought has decided to recall some of the sacked non- indigenes in the state civil service, the action has gone down to show his lack of appreciation and understanding of why Nigerians must live together and by extention the concept of citizenship.

N-ue Uebari Samuel