By ANDREW ORU

No doubt, the terminology, “True Federalism”, even on its own, connotes an atmosphere of agitation, as it simply implies that “Federalism” as defined ordinarily is being corrupted in its application in the immediate environment. We are here, talking of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the dynamics of achieving the equitable distribution of the common wealth in all its ramifications, as it affects the Urhobo nation.

First and foremost however, it shall be pertinent to attempt a definition of the political terminology referred to as “Federalism”, and thereafter, move on to relate it to its actual application to the Nigerian Federation, and especially as it affects the Urhobo nation.

As ordinarily defined by the Chambers English Dictionary, ‘Federalism’ originates from the word ‘federal’ which means “pertaining to or consisting of a treaty or covenant … founded upon mutual agreement: of a union or government in which several states, while independent in home affairs combine for national or general purposes …”.

In other words, the ordinary definition does not actually anticipate a nation made up of multi/bi-lingual ethnic nationalities within one of the federating states but one which is made up of states, each of which has a common denominating factor, with a common natural/cultural bond/destiny.

Pure and simple, it means “confederation” as practiced in the United States of America, for as you all here can testify to, the Urhobo nation only shares cultural/ancestry bonds with the Isoko, Ijaw and Itsekiri in Delta State. Indeed I am an apostle of the school of thought which believes that the Isoko people, just like the Uvwie people, the Okpe people, the Jeremi people and the Udu people are Urhobo people, but only distinguished by way of the “Urhobo dialect spoken” (that is Isoko, Uvwie, Okpe, etc).

Further to the above, the Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia defines ‘Federalism’ as follows:  “…. A form of government in which power is divided between a central government and several formerly independent regional governments.

Partial autonomy

The regional governments maintain partial autonomy after being subsumed into the larger central government …. In all modern systems, the authority of the central and regional governments is specified in a written constitution and conflicts of authority between the two are decided by a judicial authority”. This was the case when Nigeria subsumed the regional system which hitherto existed in the form of Northern, Eastern and Western regions, into a federation, and by which act they became further sub-vided into 12  states initially, and now 36 in number.

At that time, what Nigeria had was a ceremonial President, while the regions had premiers, and the regions were substantially autonomously administered.

A federation differs from a confederation, in which the central authority normally has little power over member states and almost none over individuals within those states.

Early examples of federalism can be found among the Israeli tribes in the 2nd millennium BC, the Greek city- states of the third and second centuries BC, and the Swiss Cantons of the 13th Century AD, all of which united against foreign opponents for mutual survival. In the 17th and 18th centuries the United Provinces of the Netherlands maintained a federal form of government.

Modern federalism stems from the federal type of government instituted by the founders of the United States. The federalist ideas underlying the US Constitution were delineated in “The Federalist,” a series of papers written (1787 -88) by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, but the major problem of federalism – the allocation of power between the central and regional governments – was only resolved in the United States by civil war.

In the 19th Century, the success of the American federalist system led a number of other countries to institute federalist systems. Modern federal governments include Australia, Canada, West Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Switzerland and the defunct USSR.

Certainly, it was in pursuance of the laudable objectives envisaged under a federation that it was adopted by the people of Nigeria, and which, after several other experiments, resulted in the proclamation of the 1999 Constitution in the following words:

“WE, THE PEOPLE of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly and solemnly resolved: TO LIVE in Unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God dedicated to the promotion of inter- African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding:
“AND TO PROVIDE for a constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of freedom, equality and justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the unity of our people:

“DO HEREBY MAKE, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES, the following Constitution:
“Further and in consonance with the above proclamation, it is provided under chapter 2 (section 14) of the Constitution (fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy) as follows:-

*“The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.

*“It is hereby, accordingly, declared that:
*“Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all it’s powers and authority:”

*“The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.

Being text of lecture delivered by Chief (Barrister) Andrew Oru (Egbe   R’ode of Ughelli Kingdom) on the occasion of the maiden biennial lecture series (2011 edition) of Eyovwi Club of Nigeria – August 13, 2011