After a much heated debate about what should be the acceptable standard for determining a large majority, the conference delegates have finally settled for 70 percent. In this interview, a prominent leader of thought in Yorubaland, Chief Supo Sonibare, insists that the resolution will hinder consensus building on such contentious national issues as resource control, autonomy of federating units and power devolution. He also declares the All Progressives Congress (APC) as right wing politicians who do not believe in genuine progressive ideology. Excerpts:

How do you see the controversy as to what should be the consensus of the delegates at the national conference on national issues?
There is nowhere in the world where 75 percent consensus is adopted as criteria in determining a large majority. It is a bit unusual that part of the rules adopted by the conference is 70 percent agreement. For me, it shows that may be the intention is just to have a minimal agreement to move the nation forward on the basis of things that are not controversial at all. And if that is the case, there is no need being there.
What are your expectations from the conference?
This is not the type of conference some of us have always agitated for. But in spite of that, it is still a commendable effort on the part of President Goodluck Jonathan that he thought it fit to gather men and women of considerable talent and experience from various constituencies all over the country to advise him on how to do it. That committee which was headed by Senator Femi Okunrounmu has submitted its advice and now they are asking for the views of Nigerians from various constituencies to suggest what should be the proper constitution. It would have been better if that body had the consent of the National Assembly. Even without that, if there is a provision for a referendum, it will strengthen legitimacy of their deliberation and what they agreed on. It will put it on a higher pedestal than the constitution we are currently operating. The constitution we are currently operating was not subjected to any referendum. It wasn’t a document that had the acceptance of the Nigerian people through a referendum. The conference can elevate that document to a level that is far beyond the level of our present constitution. Our present constitution is a military constitution. The National Assembly derived its legitimacy from a military constitution. So, if there must be another constitution, it must be subjected to a referendum. And if a majority of Nigerian people accept that document, then surely it will elevate it to a higher pedestal than the military constitution that is governing us now.
Do you see the possibility of achieving consensus on resource control, financial federalism and other contentious issues that have always agitated the minds of the people?
There is always some reluctance of people to let go of revenue that has been coming to them. I think all the zones should have a rethink about how to progress in this federal arrangement. Even in business arrangement, if you strike a deal in a transaction with another person and that person feels cheated, it is not a good agreement because that person will be waiting for an opportunity to express his or her displeasure. But if you strike a deal with someone and there is mutual concession, both parties will feel satisfied. So, if oil is the contentious issue, then non- oil producing areas must realise that there is injustice in changing the way and manner we shared our commonwealth from where we started. At the beginning, it was derivation. Then, there was groundnut in the North, cocoa in the Southwest and palm oil in the East. It was the military that came without any popular acceptance from the Nigerian people and changed that formula. So, it is not unreasonable for oil producing states to feel that they have been cheated. What I am saying is that both sides have to be satisfied with the consensus arrangement that recognizes the fact that they must go back to the issue of derivation in determining what is due to a particular region. There has been a great disservice to the oil producing states in this country in that they produce the bulk of wealth of this country without any meaningful development in their zones. I think it is only fair that we revert to derivation. It might be a staggered arrangement, but they must enjoy the benefit of their resources. We should go back to derivation as a means of determining how to share our revenue. And I think derivation should be across board on all receivables by the Federal Government. VAT should be by derivation as well. Lagos accounts for 60 percent of VAT in this country and does not get the proportion that is consistent with the burden it is carrying for doing that. So, derivation should be on all incomes. And I think that is the way to move forward. On the issue of true federalism, I think we should honestly address our minds to the autonomy of federating units. Federating units should not be waiting for subvention from the centre. And the only way we can have federating units that will not be dependent is to use the already existing six geo-political zones as units. In doing so, we must accept the concept of states because we have created the states already and we can’t by fiat say they should not exist again. States have proved to be a useful point for development. But several states are not viable and there are still agitations for more states. Funny enough, there is no template that one can say is of general application for the 36 states. Southeast, for instance, deserves as many states as any other zones in Nigeria. But it is not so. The only way to address the issue of agitation for more states is to use geo-political zones as regions and forget the federating units. Each region can then create as many states as its resources can sustain. The states can then determine the next structure that will bring about good governance to the people. The powers between the regions and the states will be enumerated in the constitution. In arriving at the constitution, it is the states that will determine the functions of regional governments. Similarly, there will be clearly spelt out criteria for creation of states within the regions. So, it will not be the business of any region to question the number of states in another region because there will be equality of revenue from the centre.
Will that not require collapsing the existing six geo-political zones into three based on the old structure?
I think six geo-political zones is a better way of putting Nigeria into stable federating units than the three regions. The six geo-political zones take the major ethnic groups into three regions and the minority groups into three regions. It enables the minority groups to form a solid bloc that will be as politically influential as the majority groups. I think that is a fair balance.
Why did Yoruba leaders of thought include the right of the federating units to secede in their agenda for the conference?
If three or four of the existing geo-political zones feel that the way and manner the country is being run is unfair and if some other zones want the status quo to remain, then you can’t force people together. Like I said earlier, people can only come together by agreement. So, if it is not possible to have an agreement that ensures that both parties are contented, one is entitled not to abide by that agreement. And that is simply secession. You cannot force people to stay together in a country. I want Nigeria to stay together as one country but I appreciate the fact that the constituency I represent feel that the arrangement is not fair and I know that if they continue to stay together in an arrangement that is not fair, they will be looking at the option of leaving that arrangement. So, it is incumbent upon those who claim to be patriotic and want one Nigeria to do whatever they feel is necessary to ensure equality in the union. It must not be a master-servant relationship. And, of course, if you are not the one producing the resources, you cannot be the master.
Are you saying that the outcome of the conference could be 50-50, if the delegates are not all genuinely committed to getting the same result?
If creating consensus is about getting 70 percent acceptance, then that has already put an onerous task on the ability of the conference to be able to agree on contentious issues. They may not be able to go beyond removing the local government from the legislative power of the National Assembly. It will be a very herculean task to reach 70 percent on any other substantive issue beyond local government devolution. If majority of the zones in the South feels strongly on a particular matter and there is no consensus with majority in the North, it means there won’t be an agreement. And like I said earlier, an enduring agreement is an agreement that enables both parties walk away from a transaction with a sense of satisfaction based on some mutual concessions. There are lots of inconsistencies in our policies. You are promoting one nation on one hand and also promoting federal character on the other hand. Let us try and see how institutions can be built.
Part of what we have suggested is that there should be parliamentary system of government in the recommendation to be adopted. And that is very critical. It was the military that introduced the present presidential system after the 1970 Constituency Assembly that wrote the Nigeria constitution. But it is obvious to anyone who has actually seen both systems that the system that concentrates power, patronage and executive functions in the hand of one man is not a suitable system for us to operate.
The present system concentrates too much power in the hands of the President. If he likes, he can choose his friend as minister as long as the National Assembly is willing to confirm him. He is not obliged to choose those who have formulated the policies of the party. It is also the same thing with the governors. Once the state assembly is able to work with the governor, he can appoint all commissioners if he so desires. But parliamentary system brings about a government that includes those who have been responsible for formulating policies of the party. So, whoever is the leader of that party is the one who emerges as president in a national election or as governor in the state election.
Do you see APC as an umbrella for all the progressives in the country?
I don’t think APC can lay claim to be a gathering of all progressives. It only claims to be an all-inclusive national party not an umbrella for the progressives. Some of the individuals that are in APC, if they were in other countries, they will be properly identified as right wing politicians. Even in the Southwest, I don’t see progressive policies some of those in the APC have carried out having being in power for a certain length of time. Educational institutions in the Southwest are the most expensive in the entire country. Education is a critical vehicle in bringing about a fair society. And any political group that does not understand that basic foundation can never be a progressive group. They are right wing politicians.. Chief Obafemi Awolowo just didn’t introduce free education because he thought it was a political gimmick or a populist idea. He introduced free education because he saw the need to evolve a fair society. If you don’t evolve a fair society, you are creating a society of individuals who because they lack the necessary knowledge either engage in deviant behavior in the society or you will never get educated manpower to drive an industrial society.