By Obi Nwakanma

On Wednesday just past, the federal government, through the office of the Chief Secretary of State (Secretary to the Federal Government), announced the final guidelines for the proposed National Conference to be convened in Abuja, the federal capital. It might suffice here to summarize the modalities as announced by Mr. Anyim Pius Anyim: the conference is billed tentatively to last through three months of deliberation to be managed by a Conference Management Secretariat. Delegation to the conference would come from the six regional or geo-political areas as well as nominations from special interest groups, from “traditional rulers” to professional bodies, to Labour, to “Civil Society Groups.”

The list feels slightly unwieldy and in some cases duplicated and even unnecessary. But it is all in the mix of what we might call the “stakeholders” of nation. The nomination of these regional delegations is expected to be conducted from January 30 to February 20. So, the wheel of events is actually on the spin. The National Conference is expected to cover every issue except any discussion about the possible dissolution of Nigeria. According to the release by Mr. Anyim on behalf of the Federal government, “the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable.”

First, let me address the question of the legitimacy of the National Conference summoned by the Jonathan government by simply asking a question: what legal force backs it? This question comes as a way of anticipating some of the arguments that might be made by critics of the Jonathan move, who have seen it as time-wasting, and a ploy by President Jonathan to distract Nigerians, legitimize his presidential campaign, and establish a claim beyond the actual achievement that might come from the conference. Many suspect that the president will load the delegation with his supporters, back them with a lot of spin and spin doctors, and claim whatever outcome engineered in the process – and we do not know yet what that outcome would be – as vox populi, which will in turn become the voice of God.

Given the criticism already voiced by the president’s critics in the opposition, it is important to anticipate that the path to this National conference will be lined with the deadly mines of cynicism.

It is thus in the interest of this administration, if it truly wishes to conduct this conference, and endow it with the legitimacy that it must reflect, to show its conducts, its foundation, and its outcome to be above board and established by the law of the land. There is nothing currently in the laws of Nigeria that gives the president the power to convene a National Conference. Already, I hear the likes of Professor Ben Nwabueze who support a conference along the line of ethnic nationalities with no issues barred staging their own battle of wits with the arrangements already made by the Federal government. The second question is about ways and means: how will the conference be funded? Are the delegates to be compensated on a per diem and by what calculation? It is true the administration included approbation for the conference financing in the current budget under review in the National Assembly.

The question however is, what happens if the National Assembly does not approbate that item of the budget and the necessary appropriation for financing the National Conference? Already the President has significant opposition in the federal legislature, and this scenario, a long-drawn debate on the federal budgets is not impossible to imagine. Indeed, the legislators might be doing us all a world of good by placing it all under scrutiny. The National Conference of the magnitude that should affect the lives of Nigerians should be a vertical and horizontal process. Which means this: It is not up to the president or the executive branch of government to announce, convene, and fund a national conference.

It should be the product of the entire process of government. The first part of that process should have required the president of the federation to seek a bill of the National Assembly to establish the necessary Act of Parliament establishing the conduct of the National Conference, and empowering the president to set out the modalities according to the provisions of that Act. I am not aware that the National Assembly has convened and established the necessary legislation that would empower such a conference. Part of that process should have included convoking of the various state Assemblies who would as a matter of course, establish under the federalism principles, the basis for the selection of the regional delegations.

I think that the president’s political advisers and lawyers have not given him the right counsel on this matter, and the convocation of the National Conference might be mired in the marsh of a crisis of legitimacy. Finally, I think a National Conference convoked to discuss Nigeria must never have “no-go areas.” No issue, including the question of the continued existence of Nigeria must be off-limits to the conference. Indeed, that question itself must be the very first order of discussion by the delegates, and must be dealt with if the outcome of the National Conference is to be taken seriously.

At the core of the Nigerian crisis today is the matter of national belonging. There are many who feel deeply that the Nigeria as a nation is historically flawed; that what they call the “Lugard’s cage” is, by the very nature of deep cultural differences, incapable of melding into a coherent nation. There are separatist movements in Nigeria and their voices too must be heard and factored into the mix of the debate if we must rest the ghost of national fragmentation.  I think therefore that in outlining its modalities, the administration was fundamentally wrong in barring debate about the possible dissolution of Nigeria. It is, if this conference must hold, a legitimate question.

It is therefore crucial to take the following necessary steps (a) introduce a bill in parliament that will establish the necessary Act of the national Assembly empowering the convocation of the National Conference, and (b) open up the debate without barriers or “no-go areas,” including the debate about the viability of Nigeria as a nation.

The unity of Nigeria is negotiable. It is imperative to come to terms with these facts, otherwise, we might merely be engaged in a futile process, and the outcome might just become the work of a mutual admiration society – a thorough waste of time and energy. I’m sure the president wants a legacy sturdier than that.