“It must be obvious that no Nigerian can be contented so long as any major sector of the economy is controlled by foreigners””- Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa

IT is of particular importance that we should understand the “fundamental political character” of any agitation, as V. I. Lenin suggested, in order to come to grips with its purposes and objectives. Such an agitation today whose political complexion we need to understand and analyse, is the call for the “restructuring” of Nigeria and the abrogation of its fundamental law, the 1999 national Constitution. The first aspect of this agitation that we must understand is that it is NOT a people’s or proletarian agitation, but a bourgeois agitation aimed at ushering in a “new” political dispensation in the country that draws its essence and inspiration from the old defunct Constitution of 1963.

Secondly, we should realise that it is an agitation that is rested on shifting perceptions and tendencies driven by momentary expedience, and NOT based on the understanding of the peculiar economic conditions that have shaped and continue to influence Nigeria’s governance and politics since independence. The agitation so far misses all the critical points, especially the linkages between the political evolution of the Nigerian State and its colonial antecedents and the incorporation of the entire country and its modes of production into the global capitalist economy, that transcends any other factors of national significance.

This transformation or cooption into the global capitalist economic system is the basis of the crisis or dilemmas that the agitation for “restructuring” seeks to highlight, albeit wrongly, with the attendant social, political and other implications on the trajectory of Nigeria’s development. For us to make any sense of the “restructuring” of Nigeria, we must proceed from the basic and fundamental problems of economic development and wealth distribution in this country. This is a weighty exercise which must entail research and careful marshalling of facts in order to arrive at a rational or empirical conclusion.

It will not suffice merely to reel out a series of grievances and attribute them to the inadequacies or deficiencies in the 1999 Constitution on which basis we can now call for its obliteration. Governance, laws and politics, like many other national endeavours, are the reflections of the economic system that a country operates, and their successes or failures can be directly attributed to that economic arrangement. In Nigeria’s case, the different phases of economic development in the country produced their own sets of issues and challenges that translated into the political and legal dynamics of governance of the country.

The political crisis of 1959 that led to the events of 1966 and subsequently to the Civil War between 1967 and 1970, were events that are shaping our country’ s political trajectory to this day. Those episodes are, however, linked to the various interests subsisting at the time around the type of economic system that should be adopted by the government in a post-colonial arrangement. The contradictions emerging between a largely indigenous merchant business class in the South, and the basically agrarian economic class of the North, established clear lines of demarcation in their perceptions and attitudes to governance of the country.

These differences came to a head after the elections of 1959 and the nationwide population censuses of 1962 and 1963, which became the objects of controversy that effectively sealed the fate of the First Republic and its constitutional foundation. The January 15, 1966 military takeover of government effectively terminated any usefulness or need for the Republican Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In its place, a series of Decrees were promulgated that shaped the governance of the country and established its new legal frameworks. One such act was the promulgation of Decree No. 5 or the Banking Amendment Decree of February 16, 1966. It provided for investigation into the accounts of persons to interdict corruption and other malpractices, but essentially it was an instrument of strengthening the military’s grip on the country, especially targeted at the politicians and propertied classes in the country. 

Another episode in the economic evolution of Nigeria was the adoption of the “War Economy” between 1967 and 1970. The critical need for tightening of fiscal control and enhancing the capacity of the national economy to withstand the shocks of the Civil War, necessitated the adoption of stringent measures to control inflation, ensure food production, raise government revenue and create the basis for the rapid industrial development of the country. The management of the economy and the successful prosecution of the war became the most important preoccupations of the military government.

Measures like the amendment of the Treasury Bills Act of 1967, the Customs Tariffs (duties and exemptions) Order No. 2 of 1969, the Banking Decree of 1969, etc, were among the policies implemented by the military government under General Yakubu Gowon, to maintain the country’s stability and gain traction towards national development. The role that crude oil was to play from then on right up to this day also took shape from those years of instability and uncertainty. The promulgation of the Second National Development Plan (1970-1974) was a major step towards the consolidation of the post-colonial and post-Civil War status of Nigeria. 

Virtually all the Federal Government strategies and policy frameworks henceforth were directed towards the implementation of this economic programme. The succeeding changes in governments that witnessed the dramatic upheavals of 1975 under General Murtala Ramat Muhammad, were part of the search for a better governance framework for the country. The Third National Development Plan (1975-1980) was premised on the need to consolidate the national economy around food self-suffiency (Operation Feed the Nation) and industrialisation. Ten times the level of funding of the Second National Development Plan was dedicated to the Third Plan (N30 billion) which raised the bar in terms of the nation’s ambitious development objectives.

The Third National Development Plan remains to this day the most important economic strategy ever conceived for Nigeria. It was followed by the Fourth National Development Plan (1981-1985) that was to be implemented by the succeeding civilian administration which advanced the capitalist economic system in Nigeria. A lot of activities happened during the time, especially in consolidating food production and industrial development in the country.

The introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP, in 1984 exposed the various and distinct contradictions in our economic management and production systems in Nigeria. The preponderance of the country’s revenue source from the extraction of crude oil and little or no local value addition to this system, meant that we remained totally reliant on foreign buyers of this single commodity in its raw form for our survival. Virtually every aspect of government and legal instruments of importance dovetailed from this fact.

All the functions of government in Nigeria became directed towards addressing the issues surrounding the production and sale of crude oil and distribution of revenues accruing therefrom. Various legislations, including the recently adopted Petroleum Industry Act, the transformation of NNPC into NNPCL and others, as well as the establishment of statutory bodies like the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Allocation Commission, RMFAC, and the regular functions of the Federal Executive Council, FEC, are invariably dictated by the amounts of money generated in a particular month and the way such monies are to be allocated to the various beneficiaries in the federal structure.

It is therefore NOT simply the issue of the “constitution” per se that disturbs the equilibrium of the functions of our federal system, but rather, it is the anomalies associated with our economic production system and wealth distribution processes that are the underlying causes of our national malaise. To really bring about a fundamental transformation of our country for the better, a far more superior argument centred around economic issues should be advanced, rather than the superficial attachment to the ideas of “restructuring” of the country based on “Constitution” rewriting and other somersaults. This line of thinking will form the contents of the series on “restructuring” as advocated by “The Patriots”.