By Okey Ndiribe
Asst. Political Editor

Prof. Okey Ibeanu teaches Political Science at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He believes the debate on zoning is a waste of time since it has no legal backing. He instead advocates that the Federal Character principle which is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution  should be re-examined to determine whether it is working.  

Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that: “ The composition of the Government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies.”

What is your view on the position held in some quarters  that the controversial zoning principle roughly reflects the federal character principle which is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution?

My view is that what is legal and which is enshrined in section 14 of  the constitution is the federal character principle. It simply means that the main positions of government, not just at the federal level but also at the state level represents some kind of spread at the state level based on the component local governments and at the federal level based on the states.

Some political parties have claimed that zoning  is the same federal character principle which  they are applying. What they mean is that if they are successful, the zoning principle is their own way of applying federal character. But the claim by such political parties is questionable on a number of grounds.

In the first place the zoning principle is not even contained in the constitutions of such parties. It is usually an ad-hoc arrangement. The problem with an ad-hoc arrangement is that it is not based on any clear goals and therefore this could be an instrument for putting people at a disadvantage in the kind of balance they are looking for.

The second point is that the zoning principle has become extremely controversial in Nigerian politics. The principle focuses on the major political offices in the nation’s political system. You can see that the debate is presently heating the political system.

But the federal character principle is clear because it is enshrined in the constitution. The  Zoning Principle  is not in the constitution and cannot be equated with the federal character principle which is contained in the constitution.

The debate on zoning has contributed to the political discourse in Nigeria. It has also contributed in creating tension in the country. But like I have always said it is an internal party affair. In many cases it is not in the party constitution. So, there are no clear principles underlying the zoning principle. This is why it has become controversial.

I can ask when does a particular zone produce the president of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of  Representatives?  These are some of the issues that create tension. For it to be applicable it has to be enshrined in the constitutions of the parties that adopt it as a principle. The logic behind why a party decides to adopt zoning also has to be clearly spelt out.

What do you really think about the federal character principle and how it has been applied in the last 50 years of Nigeria’s independence?

We shouldn’t talk about 50 years because the federal character principle only came into force in 1979 when a new Constitution was adopted that year. For him what is crucial is to pose the question of why it was included in the constitution.

The question of whether the objective for which it was enshrined has been fulfilled also arises. In the first place as you know every country’s constitution is a reflection of its history. If we go back to the 1960s, there was this wide-spread  feeling that certain ethnic groups and by implication certain states produce more people in government than the others.

So, the federal character principle was an attempt to correct that and achieve some kind of balance. But the reality is that even  when you have a constitutional provision, putting it into practice may become difficult.

The constitution provides the principle so to speak and it also provides for a Federal Character Commission. However, the criteria used by the Federal Character Commission for its work  is not known to anybody. The criteria used by the commission for its operations were never widely debated.

This is part of what creates the problem because the people don’t know the basis for the allocation of offices. For the office of federal ministers it is clearer in the sense that over the years, every state produces at least a minister.

But the federal character principle goes far beyond that. But since the guidelines are not publicly debated, sometimes people question whether the principle is being implemented properly and so on an so forth. So, there is need for more transparency, more openness and more public debate about these issues before the Federal Character Commission can really arrive at a set of principles beyond what is clearly set out in the constitution.

Can you evaluate the application of  the federal character  principle or zoning  among the three arms of government?

It cannot be done because the guidelines for the application of this principle by the FCC are not clear. We cannot talk about zoning as it applies in this case because it is not a constitutional principle. I would rather restrict myself to what is recognised by the law and that is the federal character principle.

The law created the FCC to oversee the application of the federal character principle.

My worry is that the work of that commission is not well known; neither do we know its guidelines. You cannot assess what is happening in three arms of government without that template. It is the responsibility of the Federal character commission to open its work and publicise its guidelines so that one can evaluate the work of the commission and determine whether it is still in line with the provisions of the constitution.

Vanguard: What is your view about the position held in some quarters that the federal character principle in the constitution should be expanded to include zoning in future constitution amendment exercise?

Ibeanu: I don’t see why that is necessary. This is because including zoning in the constitution  would heat up the political system. When you talk about the six geo-political zones, you should recall they are artificial creations based on the Constitutional conference of 1994 and 1995.

There is really no need for the zoning principle to develop a life of its own. Right now we have states. It is really difficult to understand why it is so important to the extent of adding another layer beyond what the constitution has provided..