NATIONAL UNITY AND CHALLENGE OF PATRIOTISM: BY MOSES AMADI

The merger of the southern and northern protectorates in 1914 by the British colonial government gave birth to Nigeria. However, it has been a journey of multiethnic nationalities, different religious groups, and dynamic political system under one roof as a united country. The task of unifying the various ethnic, religious and social groupings in the country has been a national challenge more than 100 years since amalgamation in 1914.

Segregated settlements such as Sabon Gari in Kano, came out of ethnic preservation and conflict issues. Southerners in the north asked for a unique settlement pattern and it was given to them by the colonial masters. Northerners in the south also did the same.

Looking at Nigeria’s socio-political problems from the sociological point of view, it is largely believed that the communities of Itsekiri and Urhobo are considered to have the most inter-tribal marriages in the country. But in the latter part of Babangida’s Administration, there was so much internal strife between these communities. If this is extrapolated to the wider Nigerian space, it shows a reflection of the ethnic disharmony in the country. The Nigerian people have so much in common, yet they find it difficult to integrate.

The gap between the various groupings seems wider as the nation continues to be plagued by ethnic rivalry, power sharing and lately violent agitations. Unifying the diverse ethnic, religious and political inclinations in the country amongst insecurity challenges, remains one that should be surmounted in order to uphold the central tenet of one nation.

Disagreements and controversies over the best federal structure to be adopted, size and responsibility of government as well as how resources are acquired and shared, have become some of the recurrent features of the Nigerian state. The country has not been able to craft a system that will enable it to manage its resources jointly and to enjoy the best it has.  

After the Nigerian Civil War, Nigerians are still engaged in internal squabbles which they should have overcome by now. The talk about the indivisibility of Nigeria could be challenged, considering that hegemonies like the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, among others, have been split into different countries.

Since 1999, Nigeria has enjoyed uninterrupted democratic government but bad governance has however set pace for economic hardship which has links to the present insecurity, ethnic and religious tension in the country.

Most of our political elite including traditional leaders are not doing enough to harness our diversity so that we forget our tribal and religious sentiments. Elite fragmentation is largely the reason why the dreams of our forefathers have not been realized. The intention was to make Nigeria the biggest nation of black people in the world.

Similarly, the followership has been docile even though members of the public bear the consequences of policies of wrong and misguided leadership. Citizens must know that they are major stakeholders in the destiny of the nation. They need to know that they have a responsibility to participate in democracy and select leaders.

Sadly, citizens have not demonstrated that they have the capability to define their own destiny unlike in some countries where real leadership emerges from the grassroots. These leaders may also belong to the rank of the elite but the fact is that they have come from the groundswell of agitation, opposition and disappointment. That was why in the short historical trajectory of Nigeria, especially in the First Republic, there were political parties for the underprivileged. For instance, the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) championed, among others, the interest of the marginalized or the talakawas.  

Our type of political management system is problematic. Too much power is concentrated at the federal level. In our politics, and in allocation of resources and its management, we divide the nation. This has generated conflicts, as ordinary Nigerians who are victims of this problem, fight themselves and make the nation ungovernable.

State governors have been described as emperors, who assume full responsibility as the Chief Executive Officers of their various states each time they want to witch-hunt their opponents by mobilizing security forces. But when it comes to providing adequate security in their terrain, they plead helplessness

Sociologists say that diversity in itself is not a problem; it is what is done with it that matters. Whether or not socio-cultural varieties strive for success entirely depends on how the society chooses to manage it.

Blessed with huge potential in human and natural resources including agriculture and minerals across the country, Nigeria has what it takes to be a great country. What binds us together is stronger than what separates us. Agitators and separatist movements should be engaged through constructive dialogue, so as to proceed to a sustainable national integration and development.

Nation statehood is the modern form of social organization; the focus should be on de-emphasising tribal societies. But the 1999 Constitution (as amended) lays premium on indigeneship instead of place of residence. Place of residence should rather be the key to communal living or the basis for representation or giving people positions of responsibility. That idea that a non-indigene is accepted and involved in the running of the system within his locality, propels them to be more interested in what is happening in the area they live.

The age of tribal entities as administrative units is long past. Two of the most advanced economies in Europe, Germany and Italy, were made of ethnic or tribal groups. But those cracks were mended by peace-builders who served as unifiers. Giuseppe Garibaldi was the bridge-builder in Italy while Otto von Bismarck played a similar role in Germany. In seeking to get a unifier of the diverse entities we have in Nigeria, we should avoid ethnic and parochial capture of leadership.

Nigeria should do well to generate such unifying enthusiasm amongst the people and to make that a national goal. But first, we have to create lofty values before talking about leadership that will implement them. Our leadership recruitment system should be rigorous and capable of throwing up a reasonable mass of people we can entrust our values to; leaders who can put the welfare of Nigerians at the very centre of the purpose of their national being.

Our management skills should be put to work in ensuring that instruments of integration continue to serve the purpose of national unity. The federal character principle, National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), unity schools, national symbols, National Orientation Agency (NOA), among others, have been adopted to facilitate national unity in Nigeria.

The unity schools, for example, were a creative idea by the late prime minister, to bring Nigerian students together by experiencing other cultures. It is said that experience is better than knowledge. That experience creates a sense of patriotism and belonging. These integrative instruments strengthen democracy and the peace imperative.

To have durable peace architecture, the leaders themselves will be willing and ready to embrace peace. Through this, it is expected that they won’t engage in any activity that will generate conflict. All the institutions and other arms of government must be connected and committed to having a peaceful nation. Commitment to peace means that leaders will be determined to implement the letters of the constitution. 

National goals that are important to our collective welfare need to be pursued with vigor such as leadership succession based on national vision that everybody has to key into. Our leaders should have a national outlook so much so that Nigerians living in any part of the country will be accepted as compatriots and encouraged to achieve their aspirations. This way, patriotism and tolerance are engendered, and non-indigenes can be sympathetic to the problems of their host communities.

Obviously, patriotism is a way of strengthening national unity; it is a kind of bargain in which the nation state defines what it owes its citizens. It goes back to leadership and good governance. If the affairs of the country are well run and every citizen sees themselves as benefiting, they will love their country. If citizens compare themselves with other citizens in other countries and they know they are better off, and the difference is accounted for on account of their Nigerian citizenship, they will have a lot to defend.

 

THE CHALLENGES OF NIGERIA’S LEADERSHIP DEFICIT: By MOSES AMADI

Poor leadership and governance is usually at the root of every nation’s problem. This assertion must have prompted former President Olusegun Obasanjo to acknowledge recently the leadership deficit reality even in the midst of a large number of technocrats in the country. “Nigeria has no scarcity of people to lift the country and Africa up. But Nigeria is deficit in leadership.”

When one takes a look at the simple definition of leadership, it involves knowing what to do and how to bring resources together to achieve a particular purpose. Leadership is influence and management. Leadership is basically the ability of followers to follow willingly without compulsion based on how positively their lives are affected by the leader.

Leadership is a determinant of the success or failure of government institutions or non-governmental organizations including businesses. Little wonder that efforts are always being made by critical stakeholders to bequeath or train people aspiring for leadership at all levels. This is in recognition of the role leadership plays in driving the objectives of development agenda in the society or in an organization.

Leadership position is one many aspire to get to as it puts one in control of affairs in a particular group, organization or at different levels of governance.

Some of the essential qualities of a great leader are known including clarity of vision, accurate decisiveness, good courage, passion and importantly high humility on the job. In Nigeria today, many leaders lack some, if not all of these qualities, and this affects those being led or workers. Some have risen to leadership positions by favoritism, meaning without any trace of training or mentorship.

This development has created room for people to ascend leadership positions without having requisite skills and experience to pilot the affairs of organizations or communities thereby leading to misplaced priorities in development programmes. This challenge in leadership usually reflects in the way problems are mismanaged, leading to the negative consequences we often find in the society including the rampaging insecurity and parlous state of infrastructure in the country.

There are many followers, supervisors and managers, among others, but very few leaders. People have not given leadership the importance that it deserves. From history and leadership studies, we know that leaders are not necessarily born. Leaders can be trained and groomed through a process. But what we see across the country is that there are government establishments and non-governmental organizations that have leadership centres which operate by name only. The contents of their works are devoid of comprehensive leadership training programmes that are meant to groom leaders to know the skills required for leadership including leadership style, effective leadership, leadership imperatives for organizations, among others.

All these can be narrowed to the leadership deficit in the political landscape where we are having unfortunately poor political party management and very dismal governance outcomes. This deficit can be attributed to our political history and experience. Military intervention changed the trajectory of leadership in the country.

The common conversation these days has to do with the nexus between leadership deficit and the governance challenges that the country is experiencing. When we look at the first republic, most senior citizens’ lamentations have always been that the military truncated the modeling system in this country in terms of who to look up to in order to become somebody. In other words, we lost the mentorship track or link during the military interregnum in 1966.

In more recent years, there was a time any aspiring leader in the community must be recognized by the military leadership in Abuja. And that changed the dynamics. More tragic was the strategic error that was made by many activists in 1999 by refusing to participate in politics which threw up the kind of leaders who have dominated the scene till today.

The political space has been hijacked since 1999 and those who had a foothold have seized the space and they are replicating their kind. Godfatherism has become a euphemism that describes all the wrongs that happen in political leadership. Leadership qualities don’t really matter much now in the face of godfatherism. Political godfathers are concerned about the next election and willing to dispense patronage, as nobody seems to care about leaving a legacy. It has permeated in the society which is characterized by corruption, nepotism and moral degeneration.

This shows that political leadership is so central and important that it affects all other sectors in terms of policy formulation and passage of laws. No doubt, politics has influenced the socio-political atmosphere in the country. The type of leadership we see that is predominant is transactional leadership where people follow because of what they will get. Most of them are just after the gains and rewards.

Many people who work diligently no longer depend solely on their salary because of unfavourable economic climate. So, for them, a good leader is one who gives them handouts to solve their problems. Not much attention is paid to a value-driven transformational leader that emphasizes hard work, character, competence and other leadership qualities. People who ordinarily want to be good are affected by the system and the exigencies of the time. They follow leaders who they don’t like because it’s their means of survival.

In the political arena, the recruitment process is a big challenge, as the criteria for leadership selection are marred with irregularities. Many politicians believe they can just come overnight and occupy elective positions. Many are drafted into various high positions unprepared. For instance, in the early 80s, a gubernatorial candidate who didn’t go beyond secondary school education emerged from one of the northern states. The media went to him to find out his plans to govern a state given his poor educational background. He told them that what he needed to do was just to wake up every morning and order that ‘a road be constructed here, a borehole be drilled there.’

That’s militarization of the system. We still have the hangover of dictatorship. We have problems not only in the elective offices but also in the leadership of the parties. In most cases, elective offices are monetized which makes it possible for the highest bidder to become the party’s candidate.

Parties write beautiful manifestos but most of them do not implement what is therein. It’s the leadership of the party that makes the rules. We must get it right in the political party leadership because that will now translate into ensuring that the process of getting those to contest elections and come into office will be put into proper perspective, and probably get the appropriate leadership that we require. If we don’t get it right in the leadership of the party, then nothing positive can come out of elective offices.

Looking at this issue from the political point of view gives us a direction as to where we are headed. There is a need for societal reorientation. We need more than good men. We need to build firewalls around governance, and we need to build the people into that conversation. There are societies that have had very profound programmes of reorientation of their people. Those societies passed through major political upheavals like the former Soviet Union, China, India, among others. They also go to ideological schools right from youth and are schooled in the values of the state and the values of society.

Thirty years ago in the policy circle, people were not clear about how to move people out of poverty. But China demonstrated that. In 15 years, they moved 730 million people out of poverty through enlightened leadership, pressure from below and social protection policies. India removed 170 million people from the poverty bracket through the same process.

This can be replicated in Nigeria because we have the rudiments. We are already clear about our national ethics and values. But for the leadership to do this, they have to be committed to total change. It comes close to what is called ‘committing class suicide.’ In other words, reproducing one’s type in politics and emphasising those things that hold us down, will be a thing of the past.

Ethnicity, culture, religion, among others, are used by the elite as instruments of manipulation. We should look beyond this, knowing that what defines all of us is our humanity; the fact that we all need food, shelter and clothing.

We have to get more credible, capable, responsible people into the political arena; not just to occupy elective positions but also to take part in contributing in the discussion of what the vision could be.

Political leadership should be about the welfare of the people. The elite should come out of the social media and get involved in politics. In that case, a ‘development coalition’ could emerge to say enough is enough. If we are sincere in implementing the existing laws, we will have a better society. When leaders are chosen the right way, and we have people that are properly mentored coming into leadership, we will overcome some of the current challenges we are facing.

People emulate what they see in the political terrain, as there is a particular set of people that are interested in politics. Many of those in government are there for their selfish interests. Sadly, the environment has continued to reproduce itself such that both leaders and citizens now fulfill a negative prophecy in the leadership terrain.

We need to understand the dynamics that are driving us into this bottomless pit. It’s the failure of leadership; failure of leaders to build institutions, observe the basic tenets of the rule of law, and the context in which people have rights which they have to promote and defend; it’s the failure of the fact that citizens have also not been organized to demand accountability. This tells you about citizen participation and the role of the civil society in terms of being that soft underbelly that should push the state to do what is right in the best interest of citizens.

The beauty is that what needs to be done to change leadership deficit is known whether in terms of leadership grooming, process of preparing leaders or policies that can change the dynamics of the country. The framework of leadership is already set, as the vision of our forefathers is captured in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. So, what needs to be done to achieve a better society is no longer what should be debated.

In complementing this debate, experts are of the view that there are about four fundamental issues for leadership to succeed. First, is vision. This has to be identified and planned for before getting into office. Any elective officer who waits until he gets into office and starts planning what to do, may not succeed because the time is not there. Bureaucratic process will stand in the way. The very day the leader steps into such responsibility, he will be overwhelmed with protocol, courtesy calls, visitors, meetings, among others.

Second, is the planning to achieve the vision. The leader has to know the priorities, and this he can only get when he taps from the experts.

Third, is the issue of recruiting those who will help the leader to implement his plans. Sadly, most of the appointments are political patronages, not based on the capability, experience, background or antecedents of the people that are coming to do the job. And finally, is the need for leaders to showcase exemplary conduct.

The purpose of leadership and good governance is to qualitatively transform the state and society. A just society provides basic needs, ensures equal opportunity for self-development through education and gainful employment. 

MANAGING ACCOUNTABILITY DEFICIT IN POLITICAL PARTIES: BY MOSES AMADI

In trying to address issues of strengthening political parties, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), de-registered 74 political parties for failure to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Alteration to the Constitutional Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). “The Commission has determined that eighteen (18) political parties have fulfilled the requirements for an existence based on Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as follows,” the INEC Chairman, Mahmood Yakubu said.

In the words of the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, “man is a political animal.” Invariably, man is involved in political activities around him whether consciously or unconsciously.

Politics is essentially coming together ideologically and distribution of value. Parties are guided usually by their professed ideologies in selecting candidates to stand for elections, conducting election campaigns, mobilizing voters and monitoring the progress of their elected representatives through well structured key performance indicators.

Political parties are meant to link citizens and the government, serving as a bridge by which people can have a voice on how they are governed. But this does not seem to exist in our present demonstration, as the political space is always saturated with activities of political parties whether on or off the electioneering cycle.

Nigeria is a nation with checkered political history, from party formation to party ideology and philosophy. We have experienced ups and downs in this direction. Since the colonial years when politics was introduced into our system, it has been struggle all the way. What is playing out presently in the political space is also a clear indication that we may not have learnt anything from the past political debacles.

Since the advent of democracy in 1999, political management has been bedevilled by problems of cohesion, leading to a complete distortion in the sense that when the military left in that year, it was those who had resources and relationship with the state that eventually formed the political parties of this day. The reason for creating these political parties was very clear. The parties were vote-catching machines for political power.

Part of the challenge has been the ambush of party administration by the executive and godfathers. It is a quest for acquisition of political power that has always been a tussle between vested interests of godfathers and the will of the majority of the members of the political parties.

What we have is a situation where parties no longer depend on their members to raise funds but rely on candidates to bring money into the party. That’s why those who have money occupy political positions or hijack party machinery. Where a party chieftain that has resources cannot become a candidate, he wants to put somebody forward.

Management of political parties has become the exclusive preserve of godfathers and moneybags who decide the political fate and ambition of members. The modes of funding campaigns and political parties have become threats to the performance of political officeholders as they get entangled with godfathers who they are indebted to. Irrespective of how good a candidate is, money plays decisive roles as party leadership and members also prefer someone who has made significant financial contributions to the party.

Some political aspirants sell their properties or borrow money to become party candidates. Invariably, they will first recoup their investment when they get into power, as majority of the politicians win elections so that they can have access to material wealth.

This trend always plays out during elections when citizens prefer someone who can throw money around. People have realized that those they vote into power fall short of expectation in providing good governance. So, they look for how to get what they want as a people before casting their votes. It’s a social engagement that we all collectively designed where materialism is the key thing.

Attempts to subvert party constitution and the will of the people by moneybags and godfathers spell disaster for party politics in Nigeria, where who gets what is decided by moneybags in most cases. That reduces politics to wheeling and dealing. We have seen over time that such trends take a huge toll on the quality of governance by elected representatives who feel heavily obliged to their financiers at the expense of the people. This generates intra-party squabbles that distract political officeholders and affects the chances of success of political parties during elections.

Vested interests of moneybags contradict laid-down political ideology and weaken the organs of the party. Power is also appropriated at the sub-national level during elections by governors, majority of whom buy up nomination forms for their parties and decide who to ‘anoint’ for election. This act criminalises aspiration.

This lends credence to the disconnect between party managers and their members, and the electorate. What seems to be an organic link is seen when the party leadership rallies its members around for purposes of elections, ward congresses or conventions. Ordinarily, party members should be the driving force of the party, as they form a considerable chunk of the electorate where the party can get assured votes, so that their target will be how to hunt for those who are undecided or win over persons from other political parties.

Sadly, the electorate have no direct contribution to, neither can they claim ownership of these political parties. Because of political patronage and cronyism, they continue to hold on to those in power. This is a part of the leadership failure that could lead to series of fragments such that the internal structures of the party will not gain solidity; there will be deficit of accountability of internal party democracy because of the opaque nature the party is run.

It is hard to imagine that members who wrote party constitutions and manifestos cannot interpret these documents, and so, when there is internal crisis, they go to court. Many times, party members give different answers concerning their policies. This is partly because majority of the candidates sometimes come in with individual manifestos which are different from the party manifesto which was the social contract they signed with the public. This leaves a negative impact on citizens’ perception of not just the political system but also the legitimacy of the political parties themselves.

Party members crisscross parties which also offer similar ideological and philosophical choices. There is little or no difference between the parties. In more advanced political systems, parties are representative of ideas and values, and this makes it difficult to migrate from one party to another.

Politicians form parties, and at the same time, want to be presidential candidates of their parties. It is worthy to note that the African National Congress (ANC) was created in 1912, but one of its founders, Pixley ka Isaka Seme, didn’t become the president of the party until 13 years later.

What we have are entrepreneurial parties which enable people to use them as platforms to win elections rather than parties that have been established and developed to win power and run government effectively.

If we have to move from this period of arrested development to transit into some form of institutionalization, and entrench the tenets of democracy, then the leadership of the party needs to rethink how to run the organization and begin to talk about the future. That’s why it’s important for them to respect their constitution or manifesto.

Sustaining legitimacy and goodwill among the electorate is a task that must be achieved. Political parties must improve and adapt to global practices in party management to continually guarantee good governance by way of training, reorientation, among others. We may have to revive the Party Democratic Institute (PDI) for instance, where party members went for training.  Party members should be trained in such a way that they will be deeply involved with the modus operandi of the party and its ideological base. Party leaders must be willing to learn and begin to see that the future of their political party is tied to the future of their political aspiration, and more importantly, to the future of the country.

INEC needs to connect with organizations and electoral institutes that are willing to support political parties in terms reorientation. The National Institute of Legislative and Democratic Studies should rise to the occasion to strengthen legislative capacity and deepen democratic culture.

The ownership imperative in political party management is important. Parties have to be sufficiently creative in raising revenue. It is critical to the fortune of the party. Managing a political party will be easier if members contribute to the survival of the party by generating funds and making sure they pay membership dues, which are supposed to be the guiding financial force that will determine their independence. This will eliminate vulnerability of members to moneybags. This way, power will not be usurped, as members will be in control. Internal party democracy will follow naturally.

A political party is expected to grow by having an identity so that it can be distinguished from other parties. This way, the party evolves a culture built around its goals and ideologies. The party will now act independently of the government and other external forces. This will ensure the enthronement of administrative structure in the party, and guarantee transparent party processes.

ENSURING GOOD GOVERNANCE THROUGH FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY: BY MOSES AMADI

The federal government’s fight against corruption is believed to have received a boost with the recent launch of the open treasury portal which will among other things, encourage government’s whistle-blowing policy, check sharp practices and financial misappropriation in public institutions. It is a component of good governance; that element that makes the people to be aware of the resources that are in the hands of government.

The treasury portal is domiciled in the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation in the Ministry of Finance for access in tandem with the federal government’s agenda of promoting open governance.

Some years back, Nigeria joined the Open Governance Partnership which is a global alliance of about 17 countries that are committed to fiscal transparency and public accountability. It is believed that this portal which seems to be a follow-up of the partnership, will herald the era of transparency that will improve public service delivery in Nigeria.

There is a general perception that the programme is an extension of open governance whereby the management of the country’s resources is being monitored real time by Nigerians. It is hoped that this process will further deepen the anti-corruption fight of the federal government, as people can now assess the conduct of public officials that are given the trust to manage resources.

Against the backdrop of the recent controversy over constituency projects, this portal is also an avenue for constituents to monitor whether projects have been delivered or not. Nigerians now have the right to know about the financials of government at all levels including accruals and expenditures.

Furthermore, through the portal, citizens will get to understand their roles and responsibilities in advancing public debate and increasing demand to agitate rightly and constructively for reform initiatives and policies. They will know how revenues are saved and used to narrow down the country’s widening budget deficit.

In reinforcing this transparency scheme, the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) recently inaugurated what it called the Beneficial Ownership Register, which among other things, provides information about oil block licences in the extractive industry. At the moment, Nigeria does not have the expertise, financial muscle and capacity required to manage its oil assets. This system is capable of boosting the confidence of the Independent Oil Companies (IOCs) and other investors to increase their efficiency. But the bigger picture for NEITI is to seek amendment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) to enable it provide a more comprehensive register that will give information on as many companies as possible.

It is the ultimate utility of this open treasury policy as an advocacy tool that will truly make it the hallmark of good governance. But there are inherent problems in challenging opaqueness through this document.

Firstly, distorted information can be dangerous. Given that the threshold of amounts to be disclosed on the portal are N5m for ministries and N10m for the office of the Accountant-General, it brings to the fore the role of auditing before uploading information. There could be attempts by institutions to circumvent the process by breaking down bulk amounts or splitting up contracts so that they do not make a particular threshold.

Secondly, when Nigeria was exiting from the Paris Club, there were deliberations on the effective implementation of policy instruments including the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Public Procurement Act and FOI Act. These Acts including Section 51 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, empower the people to access details of government expenditure. Yet it is doubtful whether these tools have effectively ensured ownership of participatory content in budgeting and other public expenditures.

Thirdly, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration started the era of publishing receipts of the three tiers of government through the Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) on a monthly basis till date. But the initiative has lost steam and become routine because it has not helped much in transparency and accountability advocacy. It will be good to see how this treasury portal will be different in making the people the ultimate beneficiaries.

What is needed now is sincerity of government in guaranteeing that this regime of accountability and transparency is given a human face. This means opening up the space to ensure that citizens are empowered to appraise periodic reviews of public expenditures.

The commitment to improve governance and equip Nigerians with the tool to study and identify financial wrongdoings will involve the input of professionals. They have the knowledge and capability to discover loopholes, and can therefore, engage in massive civic education or training of citizens.

The federal and state governments, and the World Bank signed up to a scheme called the States Fiscal Transparency, Accountability and Sustainability Initiative which incentivises states to be more accountable to their citizens. But cascading this policy to the sub-national entities with huge populations poses a constitutional challenge.

What the executive arm of government can do in these linkages is to initiate an executive bill before the National Assembly that will translate this programme into a law. If the government fails to initiate such a bill, some members of the National Assembly can introduce private member’s bill and ensure its successful passage into law.

What this does is to insulate the scheme from policy somersaults of successive administrations. In other words, once it is translated into law, it will be difficult for any government to consign it to the dustbin of history through an executive fiat.

The constitution is meant for the people, and it is an organic document that is supposed to change with the changing realities to take into consideration the objective and subjective experiences of the time.

The onus is now on the National Assembly to kick-start the process of constitutional amendment to capture the sub-national levels of government given the huge resources at the disposal of these entities. As a matter of fact, in terms of quantum, the volume of resources in the hands of local and state governments is more than what is available at the federal level. So, it is important that the battle of transparency is taken down to these categories of government.