...National Assembly backs Jonathan
The
 Northern Elders Forum  has said the North is not afraid of the break-up
 of Nigeria  if its citizens vote for it at the end of any conference.
The spokesman for  the forum, Prof.  
Ango Abdullahi, said this in a telephone interview with one of our 
correspondents, in Abuja, on Wednesday.
He was commenting on the national dialogue advisory committee set up  on Tuesday by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Abdullahi,who  said he saw nothing wrong
 with Nigerians sitting down to discuss their problems, explained that 
contrary to the views held in certain quarters, northerners were not 
opposed to any form of dialogue in whatever form or shape.
He  said, “There is no problem with 
Nigerians sitting down to discuss their problems whether in the form of 
dialogue, whether in a form of conference, whether in the form of a 
meeting, even in the form of a Sovereign National Conference.
His view on SNC is however not in tandem
 with that of the foremost Northern socio-cultural organisation, the 
Arewa Consultative Forum, which on Tuesday said it would not support any
 form of dialogue termed sovereign.
However,   Abdullahi, a former 
vice-chancellor of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, said,  “The SNC 
that people are advocating; people are saying that it is a way for 
Nigeria to break up. This shouldn’t be a problem. Even in Britain today,
 Scotland is still agitating to opt out of the United Kingdom;  even the
 Northern Island problem is still there.
“In Spain, there are separatist groups 
agitating for independence. Even recently,  we had in the Soviet Union 
and  it has broken up into 11 different countries.
“India was created in 1948, in one year 
there was Pakistan, in another year there was Bangladesh. So why 
shouldn’t it happen in Nigeria if they (advocates of SNC) believe this 
is the way to go?
“We don’t mind any conference no matter the outcome. I don’t think it should worry any Nigerian.”
The former VC   said the earlier 
Nigerians accepted that Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities could never 
dissolve into one, the better.
He stated that  it was left for Nigerians  to make something good out of  the almagamation of Nigeria by   Britain  in 1914.
Abdullahi also noted that it was 
probably out of the desire to make something out of the situation that 
led to the several conferences that had been held since 1914.
He, however, expressed fears that the 
current attempt by the  Jonathan administration to hold another 
conference when the reports of previous ones had not been implemented 
was suspicious.
The NEF spokesman said the country had held constitutional conferences in 1976, 1978, 1988, 1994/1995 and 2005.
He stated, “In each of these 
conferences, there have been voluminous reports on what is the problem 
with Nigeria. It is not for lack of information on the issues at stake.”
 Abdullahi said that the country could still gain from the reports of past constitutional conferences.
He added, “When you look at it from this
 point of view, those who believe that Nigeria’s time is being wasted or
 that these are diversionary tactics have a point.
“Because this is what (President 
Olusegun) Obasanjo tried to do when  he was looking for a third term and
 he thought that he wouldn’t get it through another means except through
 constituting a constitutional conference.”
National Assembly backs conference
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Information, Media and Public Affairs, Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe, in an 
SMS   to one of our correspondents in Abuja,  said,  “The Senate 
supports the President in his choice of the members of the committee.”
 The House of Representatives also 
welcomed the committee and its membership, saying that Nigerians were 
entitled to freedom of expression.
However, it clarified that whenever a 
constitutional matter cropped up in the course of discussions at the 
conference, it should be referred to the National Assembly.
 said
 in Abuja, explained that the National Assembly remained the legally 
constituted body to resolve any constitutional issues in the country.
Ogor added, “We are the true 
representatives of the people. That is why constitutional matters must 
be left to the National Assembly to handle.
“But, the constitution (1999) guarantees
 freedom of expression and association. On that score, the conference is
 a welcome development; to give people the opportunity to talk and share
 ideas.”
Project Nigeria, two other groups kick
The   Project Nigeria Conscientious 
Group however  questioned the rationale behind the appointment of 
Senator Femi Okurounmu as the committee  chairman.
As the group kicked, two others faulted the composition of the  committee, saying it was not representative.
The PNCG, in its reaction on Wednesday, 
said that appointing  Okurounmu as chairman of the committee, might 
amount to an embarrassment to Nwabueze.
The  Secretary-General of the group, Mr.
 Wale Okunniyi, told one of our correspondents on the telephone   that  
if the Federal Government had consulted well, Nwabueze ought to been 
made the head of the committee.
Okunniyi said, “If they had consulted, 
Prof.  Nwabueze should be the chair of the committee. If he has to play a
 role in the committee, he has to be the chair.
“Though Okurounmu is emminently 
qualified and he is our own, he understands the issues. However when 
both Okurounmu and Nwabueze are under the same roof to discuss the issue
 of national question, you know what is right.
“So if that is not intended to embarrass
 Nwabueze, then you know what is right and what is right in this case is
 that Nwabueze should preside over the discussion.”
He  said despite the development, Nwabueze, would not reject the appointment as a member of the committee.
He added that the Senior Advocate of 
Nigeria , who is  still abroad, might not return to the country until 
after the swearing-in of the members of the committee.
“Prof.   Nwabueze is  scheduled to 
return to the country on the 11 but the swearing-in is to take place on 
the 7,”  Okunniyi added.
He  stated that the PNCG which is led by
 Nwabueze  had done “the most profound research” on the national 
conference, adding that  it already had five models of how it could be 
conducted.
Okunniyi added, “Project Nigeria 
Conscientious Group  is the body that has done the most profound 
research on the national question in the last two years. The group has 
come up with five models with which you can conduct a national 
conference within the ambit of the existing law.  We don’t intend to 
rock the boat. We are not quarelling with Okurounmu, he is our own, he 
understands the issue;  he is qualified but when you put both of them in
 one room, Nwabueze must take precedence.
“In the actual conference, he should 
chair it because he  understands the issues  better.   If it must hold, 
Nwabueze is the most authoritative person that can chair it.
“This is good because we have to do 
damage control. If they had consulted us,  we would have told them what 
to do. We want this thing to  succeed and we are going to make sacrifice
 for it to succeed. We are not going to criticise them too much; we are 
going to encourage them.
A member of the committee, Col. Tony 
Nyiam (retd), however, said they  would  take  the assignment with the 
highest sense of responsibility.
“This is not the time to talk. It is the
 time to work. We know that we have a very important responsibility 
before us. We pray that Nigerians will judge us based on our work,” he 
said.
Nyiam, who was part of an attempt to 
overthrow Gen. Ibrahim Babangida’s regime, added that he was glad to be a
 part of those planning the national dialogue under a civilian 
government.
He said there was the need for Nigerians
 to determine how they want to co-exist and to encourage the country’s 
diversity and promote its unity.
The Director, CCM of the University of 
Jos, Prof. Audu Gambo, and  the Executive Director,  Christian 
Foundation for Social Justice and Equity, Mr. Joseph Sangosanya, both  
faulted the composition of the advisory committee.
Gambo and Sangosanya, in separate 
interviews with one of our  correspondents on Wednesday,  said  though 
the idea of a national dialogue was a welcome development, it should be 
done in such a manner as not  to raise any suspicion about the intention
 of government.
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment