Mike Ikhariale
One would have thought that whenever a democratically elected government, in pursuit of its mandate, assumes the responsibility to tackle head long a national malaise as serious as corruption, such steps would receive the support and cooperation of all citizens. The development that is unfolding in the country wherein some otherwise knowledgeable persons are introducing sectional considerations in the guise of defending federalism into the fray is indicative of the lack of unanimity amongst the various groups of the federation as to what is good for the commonwealth. Without unity of purpose, Nigeria will lose the war against corruption and we shall all suffer for it.
I have tried on several earlier postings on this page to demonstrate the differences between the “Nigerian State” which is the political entity that houses the various governments within the boundaries of Nigeria as well as the holder of the sovereign powers of the nation, on the one hand, and the “Nigerian Government” which is structured within a federal format and is created by the Constitution, on the other hand.
The Constitution of the country clearly demarcates the boundaries of powers allocated to the three tiers of government, mainly, the federal, states and local governments. The expectation is that each tier, within a regulated context, shall enjoy certain amount of autonomy, all with a view to preserving the balance and integrity of the Union.
Whereas the Federal Government is endowed with sovereign powers vis-à-vis (the community) of nations externally and within the country internally, the other tiers of government can only exercise those state powers that are specifically allocated to them by the Constitution in their domains. Because of the national character of the powers vested in the Federal Government, it is understandably empowered to operate anywhere within the federation on any matter that threatens the substratum of the Nigerian State, i.e., matters affecting the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. In other words, its legislative reach is nationwide.
So far, we have identified corruption as one of the threats confronting the basic structure of the Nigerian State, and by implication, the governments in it. The Federal Government cannot therefore be faulted if it takes any action anywhere across all the tiers of government in order to stem the evil threat of corruption. It is a deliberate misconstruction of both the spirit and letter of the Constitution for anyone to equate the national war against corruption with an attempt to undermine the federal principles. Federalism cannot be made a safe haven for corrupt governments.
Whereas it is true that the Federal Government cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the other tiers of government because of the limitations set by rules of federalism, it is certainly not correct to say that the Federal Government, the custodian of the sovereign powers of Nigeria, cannot intervene in matters happening inside the federating units if they are considered threats to the wellbeing of the Nigerian State and also against the wellbeing of the government irrespective of the tier concerned.
The vigorous argument recently put forward by the well-respected constitutionalist, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, and published in some dailies that the war against corruption by the Buhari government should not provide a licence for it to truncate the principles of federalism is to some extent questionable. The reason is simply that the Nigerian State would have to exist first before the various tiers of government within it can find their status and privileges in both law and politics.
In any case whether or not a nation is federal or unitary in form is essentially a matter of governing policy and political convenience.
There is nothing inherent about being a federation as an existing federation could opt to become unitary while a unitary entity could choose to become federation. After all, Nigeria was not always a federation. Even then, not all federations subscribe to the same pattern of relationship amongst the federating units; some are loose, while others are tight.
Even though ours is a federated society like the US, it is instructive to note that the two countries took two different routes to federalism. Whereas the United States came into being by the deliberate coming together of previously separate and independent states to form the United States of America, the Nigerian federation on the other hand came into being as a result of deliberate partitioning of a once unitary entity brought into being by British colonial conquests.
It is therefore misleading to hold on to a rigid notion of federalism in this country especially where national security is involved. In a typical federation, the federating units have their own police force, their own Supreme Courts where certain matters must terminate whereas in Nigeria, there is only one Supreme Court for the whole federation.
What is more, our states were “created” through Federal Government’s fiat which further demonstrates the peculiar nature of our federalism.
My worry is that the idea being planted in the minds of our people would suggest that the Federal Government is totally insulated from matters arising from the states as if they are practically and conceptually antagonistic. It could therefore be asked: can the Federal Government interfere in state affairs where such threaten the federation as a whole? The answer is “yes”. The Federal Government cannot hide under the jurisdictional limitations of federalism and keep aloof if, for example, one of the states of the federation is physically attacking another state or other states or expected to keep aloof when a state or a group of states are engaging in acts that are capable of destroying the Union.
If President Lyndon Johnson had hidden under the fictional federal principle and neglected to act to stop segregation in some of the southern states by sending federal troops there, the situation of America would still have remained as it was in the days of Martin Luther King. Yes, it is settled law that the Federal Government cannot in the guise of fighting corruption seek to monitor the fiscal affairs of the states. But that is where the states are operating within the parameters of the Constitution. As of today, corruption is forbidden by the Constitution and any state that officially indulges in it is bringing itself within the disciplinary reach of federal powers. The reason is that the destruction of one of the states by corruption will organically affect the federation as a whole.
President Buhari should not be frightened out of the war he has declared against graft. Using legal subterfuge or exaggerated analogies to frustrate a legitimate national effort can only make the nation and its citizens poorer down the road. If the government is weakened by corruption to the point where it can no longer discharge its constitutional duties of safeguarding the realm, it would not be long before anarchy takes over.
There is no denying the fact that the government is constitutionally obligated to submit to the Rule of Law while fighting corruption. What Mr. President should be advised against is arbitrariness and improper procedures but to suggest that the Federal Government should not show interests in the corruption taking place in the other tiers of government is to expose the polity to the larger danger of self-destruction. That is why the EFCC, ICPC, CCB and CCT are all centrally located.
I doubt if there is anyone who still does not understand that corruption is killing Nigeria. It is like an internal invasion or a cancerous uprising against the commonwealth. It therefore remains the constitutional responsibility of everyone, including the Federal Government, to fight it as judiciously as possible.
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: editor@punchng.com