The Northern Elders Forum has said the
North is not afraid of the break-up of
Nigeria if its citizens vote for it at the
end of any conference.
The spokesman for the forum, Prof.
Ango Abdullahi, said this in a telephone
interview with one of our
correspondents, in Abuja, on
Wednesday.
He was commenting on the national
dialogue advisory committee set up on
Tuesday by President Goodluck
Jonathan.
Abdullahi,who said he saw nothing
wrong with Nigerians sitting down to
discuss their problems, explained that
contrary to the views held in certain
quarters, northerners were not opposed
to any form of dialogue in whatever
form or shape.
He said, “There is no problem with
Nigerians sitting down to discuss their
problems whether in the form of
dialogue, whether in a form of
conference, whether in the form of a
meeting, even in the form of a
Sovereign National Conference.
His view on SNC is however not in
tandem with that of the foremost
Northern socio-cultural organisation, the
Arewa Consultative Forum, which on
Tuesday said it would not support any
form of dialogue termed sovereign.
However, Abdullahi, a former vice-
chancellor of the Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, said, “The SNC that
people are advocating; people are
saying that it is a way for Nigeria to
break up. This shouldn’t be a problem.
Even in Britain today, Scotland is still
agitating to opt out of the United
Kingdom; even the Northern Island
problem is still there.
“In Spain, there are separatist groups
agitating for independence. Even
recently, we had in the Soviet Union
and it has broken up into 11 different
countries.
“India was created in 1948, in one year
there was Pakistan, in another year
there was Bangladesh. So why shouldn’t
it happen in Nigeria if they (advocates of
SNC) believe this is the way to go?
“We don’t mind any conference no
matter the outcome. I don’t think it
should worry any Nigerian.”
The former VC said the earlier
Nigerians accepted that Nigeria’s ethnic
nationalities could never dissolve into
one, the better.
He stated that it was left for Nigerians
to make something good out of the
almagamation of Nigeria by Britain in
1914.
Abdullahi also noted that it was
probably out of the desire to make
something out of the situation that led
to the several conferences that had
been held since 1914.
He, however, expressed fears that the
current attempt by the Jonathan
administration to hold another
conference when the reports of
previous ones had not been
implemented was suspicious.
The NEF spokesman said the country
had held constitutional conferences in
1976, 1978, 1988, 1994/1995 and 2005.
He stated, “In each of these
conferences, there have been
voluminous reports on what is the
problem with Nigeria. It is not for lack
of information on the issues at stake.”
Abdullahi said that the country could
still gain from the reports of past
constitutional conferences.
He added, “When you look at it from
this point of view, those who believe
that Nigeria’s time is being wasted or
that these are diversionary tactics have
a point.
“Because this is what (President
Olusegun) Obasanjo tried to do when
he was looking for a third term and he
thought that he wouldn’t get it through
another means except through
constituting a constitutional
conference.”
National Assembly backs conference
The Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Information, Media and Public Affairs,
Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe, in an SMS to
one of our correspondents in Abuja,
said, “The Senate supports the
President in his choice of the members
of the committee.”
The House of Representatives also
welcomed the committee and its
membership, saying that Nigerians were
entitled to freedom of expression.
However, it clarified that whenever a
constitutional matter cropped up in the
course of discussions at the conference,
it should be referred to the National
Assembly.
The Deputy Leader of the House, Mr.
Leo Ogor, who spoke to The PUNCH in
Abuja, explained that the National
Assembly remained the legally
constituted body to resolve any
constitutional issues in the country.
Ogor added, “We are the true
representatives of the people. That is
why constitutional matters must be left
to the National Assembly to handle.
“But, the constitution (1999) guarantees
freedom of expression and association.
On that score, the conference is a
welcome development; to give people
the opportunity to talk and share ideas.”
Project Nigeria, two other groups
kick
The Project Nigeria Conscientious
Group however questioned the
rationale behind the appointment of
Senator Femi Okurounmu as the
committee chairman.
As the group kicked, two others faulted
the composition of the committee,
saying it was not representative.
The PNCG, in its reaction on
Wednesday, said that appointing
Okurounmu as chairman of the
committee, might amount to an
embarrassment to Nwabueze.
The Secretary-General of the group, Mr.
Wale Okunniyi, told one of our
correspondents on the telephone that
if the Federal Government had
consulted well, Nwabueze ought to been
made the head of the committee.
Okunniyi said, “If they had consulted,
Prof. Nwabueze should be the chair of
the committee. If he has to play a role
in the committee, he has to be the
chair.
“Though Okurounmu is emminently
qualified and he is our own, he
understands the issues. However when
both Okurounmu and Nwabueze are
under the same roof to discuss the issue
of national question, you know what is
right.
“So if that is not intended to embarrass
Nwabueze, then you know what is right
and what is right in this case is that
Nwabueze should preside over the
discussion.”
He said despite the development,
Nwabueze, would not reject the
appointment as a member of the
committee.
He added that the Senior Advocate of
Nigeria , who is still abroad, might not
return to the country until after the
swearing-in of the members of the
committee.
“Prof. Nwabueze is scheduled to
return to the country on the 11 but the
swearing-in is to take place on the 7,”
Okunniyi added.
He stated that the PNCG which is led
by Nwabueze had done “the most
profound research” on the national
conference, adding that it already had
five models of how it could be
conducted.
Okunniyi added, “Project Nigeria
Conscientious Group is the body that
has done the most profound research
on the national question in the last two
years. The group has come up with five
models with which you can conduct a
national conference within the ambit of
the existing law. We don’t intend to
rock the boat. We are not quarelling
with Okurounmu, he is our own, he
understands the issue; he is qualified
but when you put both of them in one
room, Nwabueze must take precedence.
“In the actual conference, he should
chair it because he understands the
issues better. If it must hold,
Nwabueze is the most authoritative
person that can chair it.
“This is good because we have to do
damage control. If they had consulted
us, we would have told them what to
do. We want this thing to succeed and
we are going to make sacrifice for it to
succeed. We are not going to criticise
them too much; we are going to
encourage them.
A member of the committee, Col. Tony
Nyiam (retd), however, said they would
take the assignment with the highest
sense of responsibility.
“This is not the time to talk. It is the
time to work. We know that we have a
very important responsibility before us.
We pray that Nigerians will judge us
based on our work,” he said.
Nyiam, who was part of an attempt to
overthrow Gen. Ibrahim Babangida’s
regime, added that he was glad to be a
part of those planning the national
dialogue under a civilian government.
He said there was the need for
Nigerians to determine how they want
to co-exist and to encourage the
country’s diversity and promote its
unity.
The Director, CCM of the University of
Jos, Prof. Audu Gambo, and the
Executive Director, Christian Foundation
for Social Justice and Equity, Mr. Joseph
Sangosanya, both faulted the
composition of the advisory committee.
Gambo and Sangosanya, in separate
interviews with one of our
correspondents on Wednesday, said
though the idea of a national dialogue
was a welcome development, it should
be done in such a manner as not to
raise any suspicion about the intention
of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment