Nigeria

By MA Iliasu

By Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

It is no longer debatable that Nigeria, despite its crippling challenges, may never disintegrate, at least geographically. Of course, the animosities, hatred and distrust between the ethnic and regional nationalities might worsen, but Nigeria’s elasticity is exemplary and uncommon. However, I still do not accept the convenient folktale deployed by politicians that our country’s unity is non-negotiable. By now, our experience as a nation should have liberated our minds to begin a conversation on any topic of national interest, no matter the controversy or emotional delicacy.

As we approach the 61^st birthday of our beloved country, I find it imperative to discuss this controversial but important issue. From the outset, let me clarify that this article is not about the Igbo as an ethnic group or the southeast as a region. Given the rise in pro-Biafra sentiments and agitations at the moment, this article is only meant to provide an outsider view of some arguments espoused by the secessionists in their attempt to generate sympathy and popularity.

When you think of Nigeria’s disintegration, the first thing that comes to mind is Biafra – a defunct Igbo separatist nation in the country’s southeastern part. The attempt to curve this region from Nigeria in 1967 remains one of the most gruelling experiences of our country. A barely six-year-old nation was thrown into chaos by a set of greedy politicians and unscrupulous military officers who wanted power at the centre. Within those thirty months, millions of innocent citizens lost their lives, got injured or lost their possessions. In addition, Nigeria lost a large chunk of its national treasury meant to set the country on the right footing. The rest, as they say, is history.

Instead of learning from our past mistakes to avoid the recurrence of this destructive, reckless and unnecessary event, Nigerians of this generation seem to be oblivious of the necessary truth. As with most factual historical events in the Nigerian psyche, this painful experience, its true causes, and damning consequences are not well-known to the younger generations. The biased narratives in various country sections ensure that our population only hear the stories that suit their mindsets without alternative facts that would open their minds to self-criticism.

In the case of Biafra, most of the young Igbo folks have a pretty false image of their fate as a people if Biafra had happened. This skewed imagination is not unconnected with the biased, often imaginative stories these young Nigerians were told about their defunct “nation”. The Igbo popular culture and the intelligentsia depict a fictional image of Biafra as a dream-nation where the Igbos shall live in peace and prosperity devoid of challenges.

They imagine, albeit naively, that Biafra will be unlike Nigeria and that their lot would have been better than it is today. These unsuspecting chaps are led into believing a mirage of living in a nation flowing with honey and milk. They are also told that other ethnic and geopolitical sections of Nigeria are responsible for all their woes. They argue, albeit ignorantly, that if not for the North, the West, Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, etc., theirs would have been a heaven on earth. These ignorant tales conclude that a united Nigeria does not help their course as a people.

Well, I think that these views are simplistic. I also believe that it is our responsibility to tell our brethren the truth that they need to hear. Firstly, the creation, proclamation of Biafra was not in the interest of the ordinary Igbo people. It was the last-ditch by Igbo politicians to hide their faces from problems they caused and ensure they stayed in power. Secondly, our brethren are mischievously told that the Igbo were so rich that the Igboland was the largest economic contributor to the federation. Unfortunately, the falsity of this assertion is not far-fetched, as the southeast was and is still the least contributor to the Nigerian GDP. Moreover, during the attempted secession, Nigeria’s GDP was mainly from the agricultural sector, predominantly from the North.

Thirdly, it seems that many people are misled into believing that Biafra would be an oil-rich country even though none of the Southeastern states is truly oil-producing. The Niger Delta, Nigeria’s oil pot, was not and will never be part of Biafra.

Fourthly, young Igbo people tend to believe that the southeast was Nigeria’s cash-cow at independence. The bitter truth is that even in the ’60s, the perceived strong Igbo economy depended entirely on other regions. This scenario is worse today as there are probably more Igbo people and Igbo businesses in other parts of the country than in Igboland. Worse still, the Igboland is closed and unfriendly to Nigerians, making external investments impossible.

The most supposedly intelligent argument advanced by the secessionists hinges on the current centralized federal system. They claim that the centre is too powerful and that Igbo states are marginalized. This is an argument of convenience, at best. Nigerians are not oblivious that the current unitary system was the handwork of Igbo politicians who saw a unitary arrangement as the answer to their political agenda. Today, the tides have turned, and these very people are calling for the system they abolished. Restructuring this country – whatever that means – might be a good idea, but only after a genuine debate that will ensure we do not return to the same vicious circle.

People with secessionist tendencies have used the challenges in northern Nigeria as reasons for disintegration. However, Biafra will by no means be a safer or better place. Currently, some of the most terrible crimes bedevilling this country are not unconnected with the southeast. From drugs to internet fraud, armed robbery and kidnapping to arms smuggling, if not worse, the southeast is not holier than other parts of this country.

Another commonplace argument is that the industrious nature of the Igbo people is enough evidence that Biafra will be a great country. But this argument, too, has failed to account for the fact that the wealthiest and most successful Igbo people and their businesses owe their success significantly to Nigeria and not Igboland. The Igbo people are traders, and the economic success of trading lies in the customer market, not the number of sellers. What do the Igbo people actually produce or sell that does not rely on the larger Nigerian population?

On the one hand, there is nothing that the southeast offers that cannot be produced or sold by other Nigerians. But, on the other hand, everything from food to livestock, energy, and the market for everything sold depend on the other regions. The southeast is asking to leave under this situation is the most absurd strategic blunder of the century.

Similarly, Igbo politicians and administrators have not distinguished themselves from the rotten Nigerian public servants. We do not see a difference between southeastern institutions or southeasterners in Nigerian public offices and their counterparts in other regions or ethnic groups. The same crop of people will lead Biafra. So, nobody should be enthusiastic.

Therefore, it is evident from the preceding that the viability of Biafra as an independent state is not assured. For one, it will be a landlocked, forty-one thousand kilometres square piece of land, which is just a half of Niger state and less than the size of Kaduna state. Worse still, it will be circled on all four corners by its biggest adversary, the Nigerian state. Secondly, it will depend on its biggest adversary for nearly everything except air, including waterways, food, and labour. Third, it would be one of the most overpopulated countries vis-à-vis its landmass and population.

The bitter truth is that these ecological, geographical, demographic and economic factors do not support the presupposition that the Igboland is better off as a separate entity than it is within the Nigerian federation. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that even if Biafra was to happen on a platter of gold, it is not going to be the rose garden these populists have configured our brothers to believe. Thus, we should all look before we leap!

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a nomad cum herdsman, an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and is passionate about the Nigerian project. You can reach him at ahmadsheehu@yahoo.com.

By Abdullahi Abubakar Lamido

Waqf, translated as Islamic endowment, simply means a perpetual charity. As a strategic Islamic socio-economic institution, it entails dedicating a benefit-creating or revenue-generating asset for the sustainable provision of free public services to the society – especially for the less privileged. It can be created by an individual, a group of individuals, a corporate body or even a governmental institution. Waqfable asset is that which is legally owned by the endower and is cable of perpetually creating benefit or generating revenues which would be channelled to defined religious or charitable purposes.

From the dawn of Islam passing through the periods of the companions, Umayyads, Abbasids, Ayyubis and the Ottomans, waqf was maximally utilized as a unique instrument for addressing virtually all aspects of societal religious, economic, educational, healthcare and environmental development needs. In fact, what “substantial historical evidence” suggests, as established by Islamic economic historians like Murat Cizakca and before him, Marshall G.S. Hodgson, is that, “waqf, not zakah was the most important institution for redistribution of wealth” in Muslim history.

Historically, waqf has sufficiently financed virtually all aspects of public welfare and developmental needs, especially education and healthcare. To wit, in the area of education, it was used for building schools, libraries, laboratories, student hostels and lodgings for teachers, scholars and researchers. It also funded scholarships, payment of teachers’ salaries and the provision of food, clothing, learning and instruction materials as well as creating conducive teaching-learning atmospheres. Great Muslim Universities were built as waqfs and have continued to be substantially financed from waqf proceeds. It grew so ubiquitous that “A person can be born in a house belonging to a waqf, sleep in a cradle provided by that waqf, be educated in the school of the waqf and read the books provided by it, become a teacher in the waqf school, earn a waqf-financed salary and at his death be placed in a waqf-provided coffin for burial in a waqf cemetery”.

Relating to health, waqf has been used to build hospitals, clinics and medical laboratories which provide a wide range of free medical services, including surgery. It is documented that it was due to the advancement in service provision through waqf that the need was not even felt for governmental ministries or departments for education and health, as these were fully financed by waqfs.

Education and health were not the only areas of waqf interventions. Waqfs sustainably financed all forms of social, economic and community development services including transportation, environmental protection and beautification among others. At some historical epochs, various Muslim nations relied on waqf sources for a substantial portion of their national income.  Waqfs were used to finance the building and maintenance of mosques, traveller’s lodgings, orphanages, bridges, water-wells, public conveniences, soup kitchens, roads, street lights and gardens.  In fact, in many Muslim communities, waqfs were created for the sustainable provision of all conceivable public welfare services. Until the colonization of Muslim societies, waqf remained a significant contributor to socio-economic development in many Muslim countries. It was colonialism that changed the subject of the formula.

Having realized how waqf provided social, cultural and economic independence to especially Muslim scholars and intellectuals, who incidentally were usually the most resilient class against selfish imperial policies; the colonial “monsters”, implemented well-orchestrated policies that saw to the hibernation of the waqf sector. They syphoned many waqf assets, weakened many, deliberately rendered many irrelevant, and calculatingly destroyed the functioning and autonomy of waqfs by subjecting them to government control. They created governmental ministries that coordinate waqfs, with all the negative consequences of that.

Worth stressing is the fact that western imperialists destroyed the waqf system in Muslim lands only after they had already copied the concept from the Muslim Middle East through the crusaders, and then developed it as an instrument for financing developmental services. In her celebrated 1988 study titled “The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College”, Monica Gaudiosi established that it was actually the waqf institution that gave birth to the concept of Trusts and Foundations in the West.  Modified and enhanced waqf was used to establish great western institutions such as the Merton College which still shares clear similarities with the waqf institution. And except for a few changes in the English law of Trust, most features of waqf have remained unchanged in the western practice of Trusts till date.

Interestingly, for more than two decades now there has been a growing global waqf reawakening. From the Middle East to Africa, and from the West to the East, waqf consciousness has continued to balloon. Despite the big blow that colonialism did to the waqf sector, making it reduced to merely an atomized institution concerned with financing some aspects of the spiritualties, the global Muslim communities have now rejuvenated their commitment to reposition waqf as a dynamic Islamic, third sector socio-economic institution. Waqf is seen and promoted as an engine of poverty reduction, wealth creation and distribution, employment generation and socio-economic development. In 2016, the World Bank noted that if properly harnessed “even if partly”, waqf, alongside zakah, can eradicate poverty in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. For a long time, combine global assets are estimated to be close to USD 1 trillion and growing.

Conversely, the story of waqf in Nigeria is largely different from other Muslim communities like Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even others like Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. Yes, waqf knowledge and practice have existed in Nigeria for well over a millennium. But for several reasons, including historical, it was not comprehensively institutionalized in Nigeria’s pre-colonial history as a holistic, comprehensive socio-economic institution that provides a wide range of public welfare and developmental services. Its knowledge and practice have largely been reduced to the religious waqf, mostly mosques, cemeteries and religious schools. Even these waqfs, hardly had other revenue-generating waqfs for their sustainable funding as obtained in other climes.

But why should waqf be of great significance to Nigerian Muslims? It is of course factual that poverty is largely a Muslim phenomenon in Nigeria. All official statistics show that the states with the highest poverty rate are the Muslim dominated states. The majority of the Muslim population live in sorry conditions of socio-economic deprivations; poverty, hunger, squalor, illiteracy and poor healthcare. Muslims account for the highest number of out of formal schools and vulnerable children. These – combined with other factors – have resulted in rising insecurity and underdevelopment. For long, the solution to this has been largely viewed by many as the sole responsibility of the government. Only a few have realized that while governments have a great responsibility, Muslims can only alleviate their sufferings if they explore, among other things, Islamic socio-economic institutions in addition to agitating for good governance.

One important instrument that can significantly reduce the poverty and socio-economic backwardness of the Nigerian Muslims is no doubt the waqf institution. The flexibility and dynamism of the waqf institution provide for the mobilization of diverse resources in the forms of cash, landed properties, real estate, and other resources, which would be developed and invested, such that their revenues and fruits would be channelled to developmental services.

Nigerian Muslims already have the potentials for this. The long history of Islamic belief and practice, the enthusiasm of the population towards anything connected to Islam, the high spirit of giving that exist within the rich, middle class and even the masses, the availability of Islamic intuitions such as mosques, Islamic schools and media channels, the prevalence of governmental and non-governmental zakah and waqf institutions, among others, all provide a handy infrastructure that can be explored and utilized in the campaign for a new holistic waqf regime in Nigeria.

Particularly, the growing atmosphere of waqf consciousness among the elites and Islamic scholars, as exemplified in the increased awareness creation and establishment of Islamic charitable foundations in especially the last five to seven years, all point to existing opportunities for making waqf a veritable instrument for socio-economic empowerment. All this can also be added to the vast arable land an array of professionals and intellectuals that the Muslim community is blessed with.  It is our opinion that with these and several other potentials, if philanthropic waqf were to be well studied, promoted, institutionalized and maximally harnessed and utilized, poverty would be largely reduced and socio-economic empowerment would be greatly triggered in Nigeria.

In this regard, there is the need to utilize several platforms for waqf discourse such that its potentials would be unearthed, its dimensions analyzed, its impediments examined; goals defined, priorities set and methods of actualizing the dream well spelt out. These platforms should bring together the Islamic scholars, business persons, professionals, community leaders and all important stakeholders to common thinking tables. In the light of this, the AZAWON Newsletter presents itself as a primary platform for debating, dialoguing and analyzing waqf matters (alongside other Islamic social finance instruments).

Scholars, intellectuals, professionals and other concerned citizens are therefore invited to continue contributing articles, reports (written, pictorial or otherwise), opinions, comments and all valuable information that can enrich and smoothen the journey to making waqf a serious business in Nigeria.

Malam Abdullahi Lamido is the Chairman, Zakah and Waqf Foundation, Gombe, Nigeria. He can be reached via lamidomabudi@gmail.com.

By Muhammad Sabiu

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed secessionist organisation agitating for the breakaway of Nigeria’s southeast, has declared that the 1st of October would be a sit-at-home day.

The group has also ordered all Nigerian flags in the region to be removed.

The proscribed organisation, in a statement by its spokesman on Saturday, Emma Powerful, stressed that it had commenced its “no Nigerian flag in Southeast” campaign.

“IPOB has declared 1st of October 2021 total shutdown in Biafra land as a sign of our rejection of the evil construct called Nigeria and there shall be no movement in Biafra land on this day.

“Also, IPOB has declared from today 25th September 2021 that all Nigerian flag mounted anywhere in Biafra land must be brought down, Banks exceptional, IPOB leadership will communicate to Banks directly and give them reason they must peacefully bring down Nigeria flag in their banking premises before we do it ourselves in our own way.

“Every body must strictly adhere to this directives from IPOB leadership, we want to let the world know you that Biafraland is not Nigeria and shall not be. Don’t say I don’t know, a word is enough for the wise,” the statement reads.

Recall that IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, is currently awaiting trial on charges relating to treason, illegal possession of firearms.

He was in recent months reportedly arrested in Kenya and later repatriated to Nigeria after spending years in the United Kingdom as what could be described as an “asylum seeker.”

By Abdulrahman Yunusa

Perhaps, this current administration has come with the solid whims of making an agricultural revolution, but they failed to understand that it’s one of the most challenging plans to achieve. It’s most demanding because it’s beyond paperwork, lip service or even baseless table talk. Instead, it requires tireless effort and viable policies to realise.

Likewise, it’s really a sacrificial movement that needs to go beyond the border of border closure tactics. Modern farming techniques are required, well and learned agriculturists versatile in modern farming should be hired to do the job efficiently.

Contrary to the above, the government brought poor hands couple with the introduction of outdated personalities to do the job. It is a clear indicator that we are not ready to achieve our goals.

 I think all these failed tried politicians have been used by the father of mediocrity and ineptitude to prove how vast and expert this administration is when it comes to the game of political deceit. So can we keep channelling our traps into the wrong portion and be anticipating a rattling result? But, of course, things never work out in such a fraudulent way.

Imagine putting the wrong panel in a position and expecting it to work perfectly. Is this not a self-deceit at its truest form? If it happens to be true, then malfunction within their administrative circle would forever prevail since meritocracy has become a key factor to be sidelined by the change charlatans. As they move to change the seemingly poor narratives here, today, the incapacitated hands are making the job uglier than it was.

Therefore, as a country dancing in between the edge of capitalism, socialism and liberal economic system as a guiding economic instrument, they should promptly take off the fruitless idea of border closure and let food float into our country. Say this because for one to develop, he must underdevelop someone, and that could be made possible only when we have a shoulder to lean upon while trying to make the dream reality.

Also, technology should be the leading figure in this journey. All these outdated farming tactics and machines should be utterly dispelled and be substituted with modern ones.

On no reasonable ground, one will expect people to produce the enormous quantity of food that will suffice a big country like Nigeria and even have a surplus that could export to neighbouring countries using the 1908s farming system. Meanwhile, at the moment where they are battling with their stomach, and annoyingly the price of fertiliser and other farming equipment couple with chemicals are at a high price.

Most importantly, people need to be fed well before heading to the farming ground, where most of their energy is utilised. Failure to provide them food at an affordable price will drastically reduce the outcome of their farming during the harvesting season, yet the desired goals will never be achieved that way.

Our govt needs to work on its farming system mechanism to fill the existing gap in the realm of agriculture and food security. 

Abdulrahman Yunusa is a political and public affairs analyst. He writes from Bauchi and can be reached through abdulrahmanyunusa@gmail.com.

By Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

To continue our conversation on a better northern Nigeria, let me bring you three unlived legacies of Alhaji Ahmed Joda, one of the most accomplished civil servants in this country. These are fantastic ideas capable of turning around the socioeconomic situation of this region and the entire country for good.

For the benefit of those who do not know him, Ahmed Joda OFR, CON, CFR was born on February 13, 1930, in Girei, a village located a few kilometres from Yola, the capital of Adamawa state. His basic education started at Yola Elementary School, from where he proceeded to Barewa College Zaria, before graduating from Pitsman College, London, in 1956. Before delving into journalism, Baba Joda started his career in agriculture and later became one of the longest-serving permanent secretaries of various federal ministries, including education, information and industry.  

Sometimes in 2019, former minister of Federal Capital Territory Dr Aliyu Umar Modibbo invited us to a meeting with Alh. Ahmed Joda. At the age of 90, Baba Joda, as we fondly called him, had assembled younger minds to think about the way forward for Nigeria and rethink the approach northern Nigeria has taken in negotiating its state, status and privileges within the Nigerian state. Baba Joda was very particular about the unity of this country, just as he was deeply concerned about the socioeconomic problems bedevilling the north. I, particularly, was astonished to see that despite his age, Baba Joda was chairing a four-hour meeting, perusing through documents and making amendments where necessary. After several meetings, recruitments, and deliberations, that meeting resulted in the “Nigerian Platform”, a collection of thinkers, excelled public servants, professionals, and academics, helping to chart a way forward for this country. The rest, as they say, is history.

Having noticed our contributions at the meeting, Baba Joda ensured my friend Dr MD Aminu and I stayed close to him and learned about this country as much as possible. We, indeed, kept in touch, learned, benefitted and enjoyed our relationship with this seasoned civil servant, experienced administrator, excellent intellectual and a special breed of the Nigerian elites.

One of Baba Joda’s agendas behind mentoring young Nigerians is to develop what he envisaged as the Nigeria Unity Forum (or any name that might suit the cause at the later stage of its development). Under this cause, Baba intended to develop a genuinely Pan-Nigerian national platform where citizens of this country will come together to discuss their grievances without hindrance, fear or hesitation. This was (to be) the first platform under which Nigerians from all walks of life, backgrounds and social status would have a free space to discuss, analyse and subject any topic of national interest without limits or limitations. The aim was to start a citizen-driven healing process among Nigerians to guarantee the true unity of our country. In the beginning, Baba had sacrificed his farmland and the facilities therein for weekly/monthly meetings of the groups. He was also to provide funding and feeding for the takeoff meetings. 

Another concept Baba Joda nurtured was a Sustainable Agricultural Model in which he invested so much time and resources in its conceptualisation and trial. Noting the waning natural resources, especially land and water, and the ever-growing population, vis-à-vis climate change and the attendant crises we are already witnessing, Baba had commissioned research into various models adopted by other countries such as India and Botswana. These countries have faced or are facing similar socioeconomic and environmental challenges. After thorough comparative studies, Baba proposed an agro-livestock model that, in my opinion, will forever change our society for good. The most fascinating and novel aspect of his proposal is its capability to deal with land and water resources, and at the same time, create a sustainable economic model that will undoubtedly work for the majority.     

The third and most important to him was the creation of the National Livestock Development Authority. Again, looking at the proposal of this agency, one cannot help but see the extraordinary visions and foresight in the manner in which it was to be designed, administered and supervised. This would not be another government-funded agency that would serve as a conduit for financial embezzlement and docility. Instead, it was meant to be a self-funding, self-sufficient and revenue-generating government agency responsible for making money for the country via our large, prosperous, but abandoned livestock sector. It was going to be a multibillion-dollar government company, richer than the NNPC and most of our aviation agencies. It would have led to vast foreign investments into our livestock sector, building companies for our manure, beef, leather, blood and born, etc., all expensive raw materials that go untapped in this part of the world. It would have been a major regional investor in this part of Africa, as it will not have had competitors for many years to come.   

While all of these and many more programs were coming up slowly but steadily, we sadly lost Baba Joda on August 13, 2021, at the age of 91. While I pray to Allah for his forgiveness and mercy upon his soul, I equally pray that those of us who are alive and are lucky to have drunk from his ocean of wisdom and patriotism will continue the struggle for a better future. I also pray that Allah will lead many more people to this cause and that these dreams, these ideas, will see the light of the day. Since Baba Joda is no longer around to pursue these ideas, I invite you to join his disciples and those who genuinely love this country to vigorously pursue and patiently work towards realising these ideas and their possible implementation.  

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a nomad cum herdsman, an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and is passionate about the Nigerian project. You can reach him at ahmadsheehu@yahoo.com.

By Dr Abdulkareem Kabir Masokano

The announcement of a high profile committee by President Muhammadu Buhari on September 6,  2021, to be headed by his Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, to oversee reforms in Nigeria’s health sector, is a laudable and timely one. However, like most sectors in Nigeria, the health sector is, to put it mildly, in a state of stagnation that, with the existing structure and organisation, is practically impossible to make any headway despite the enormous potentials abound in the sector to the economy.

There are numerous angles to the problem bedevilling Nigeria’s fragile health sector. They include the collapse of the primary health care system, poor infrastructure, inter-professional rivalry, poor accountability, inefficient, limited health insurance coverage, etc. However, the single most important factor causing the apparent none progress of the sector is the absence of a robust, patient-centred health financing model. Every single one of the problems can be directly attributable to this.

Contrary to what many think, modern healthcare is too expensive to be offered for free anywhere in the world. Nigerians think other countries provide healthcare services almost free of charge to their citizens. Actually, these are products of either heavy government subsidies, strict universal taxation regimes, or compulsory insurance programs. Over the years, governments in Nigeria have gotten caught up with this delusion that they can offer free healthcare to their citizens from the little they generate of their internal and external revenues without any sustainable framework to ensure steady financing of such an important yet expensive sector.

The result of this thinking is the current problem of underutilisation of highly trained healthcare professionals across various tertiary hospitals in the country because of the unavailability of modern diagnostics and therapeutic equipment – all of which are very expensive to use and manage. For example, we have specialists across various surgical specialities with the necessary skills to perform highly technical surgical procedures like kidney transplants, open heart surgery and complex brain surgeries. However, the system is so designed that it cannot accommodate their expertise due to the unavailability of resources to sustain such programs. This leaves many Nigerian patients cumulatively spending billions on such medical procedures abroad, and Nigeria loses money tremendously.

Primary healthcare, the essential segment of any serious health system, is virtually non-existent in the country. This is not due to the absence of the structures. It’s because of the ‘internal’ brain drain within the levels of the existing health system. The primary healthcare centres are primarily under the care of the local governments in the country. Unfortunately, most of them cannot afford to employ the minimum required number of qualified doctors, nurses and other health workers who, by extension, are pulled by better-paying jobs available at the higher levels of the system. As a result, most of Nigeria’s primary health centres are manned by Community Health Extension Workers with minimal skills and expertise.

The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), which is supposed to be the primary driver of universal health coverage in the country, is essentially running far below par due to the poorly regulated profit-driven model it is structured. According to various statistical sources, the NHIS covers less than 5% of all Nigerians (out of over 200 million people!). As a result, the vast majority of Nigerians resort to paying out-of-pocket to access specialised healthcare. With that proportion, the insurance pool can only generate a meagre sum of money.

Coupled with the profit-only motive that drives the Health Management Organisations (HMOs), one can only expect that the system cannot cover the comprehensive health needs of its enrollees, not to mention driving any meaningful growth in the sector. The state-run contributory health systems are even worse! They are fraught with inefficiencies, lack of transparency and corruption. And as far as I am concerned, they ought not to have been created as their creation only serves to decrease the pool and reach of the National Scheme.

From the preceding, it is evident that sustainable financing is the critical element missing in our health sector; the focal point of any meaningful health sector reform in the country should include improving it. The current model whereby health financing largely depends on what the governments generate from their dwindling revenue or generous donor agencies is not sustainable and cannot move the sector even an inch from its current state. Therefore, it is about time Nigeria’s policymakers look for other alternatives to fund our increasing healthcare needs, given our explosive population growth rate.

Accordingly, this high profile committee set up by Mr President should look into developing a comprehensive, sustainable, and transparent healthcare financing model that would cover every Nigerian’s most basic health needs. It should consider a complete overhaul of the country’s healthcare financing by the development of a hybrid health financing system at various levels of the healthcare system with varying blends of public, private and public-private partnership, through the creation of a compulsory basic healthcare taxation system to cover for a comprehensive healthcare financing at the primary level for all Nigerians regardless of socioeconomic class.

A comprehensive reform of the NHIS should supplement this to enforce the enrolment of all workers in the formal sector of the economy (public and private), cooperative organisations of the various non-formal entities of the economy like farmers, artisans, transport workers, among others. This will cover specialised healthcare across our tertiary and specialist hospitals, both public and private and broadening the insurance industry to include ethical health insurance systems like the Takaful system to increase inclusivity across the various demographics of the country.

The committee should also encourage creating windows for community-based contributory health safety nets to tap into the national health insurance pool to enable citizens from lower socioeconomic access to specialised healthcare at our tertiary health institutions.

Special funds can be set aside annually from the NHIS fund pool for research and development in our tertiary health institutions regarding funding for specialised healthcare services and preventive health. This should be enough to cover all the available infrastructure needed to procure, support and maintain modern diagnostic and therapeutic equipment.

The committee has qualified, world-class technocrats as members. It also has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vesta healthcare partners, and WHO as observers. Thus, we are optimistic that it will develop a sustainable blueprint for health financing as the bedrock of their essential task. May the government implement the committee’s recommendation for the needed reforms in Nigeria’s fragile health sector.

Dr Abdulkareem Kabir Masokano is a resident Surgeon, ABUTH, Zaria. He can be reached via abdulkareemmsk@gmail.com.

By Simbo Olorunfemi

Federalism is not a Nigerian creation, tempting as one might be led to assume it is. Federalism is a concept in Political Science, with a consensus on what constitutes its grundnorm and what its main features are. I had thought, as a student of Political Science, that I had a modest understanding of what federalism is, having taken a number of courses wholly devoted to it at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. But that was until Nigerians happened on the concept of federalism and I realised how little I knew about it. I have now come to accept that what Nigerians cannot happen to does not exist. Nigerians took hold of federalism, created the aberrant idea of ‘true federalism’, as if there is ‘false federalism’ in practice somewhere, and there has been no rest ever since.

Yet, even though dissensus over the definition of concepts is part and parcel of interrogation in the field of Political Science, there is, in fact, a broad consensus on the definition of Federalism. “What sets federal states apart from other national communities is not their values but a number of institutional design principles that include a division of legislative authority between two orders of government, each of which is elected directly by citizens, and each of which is sovereign in at least one legislative domain. This division of powers is set out in a written constitution that cannot be amended unilaterally by either order of government. In addition, federal states provide for the formal representation of their constituent communities (states or provinces) within the national legislature, although the means by which this is done range from direct popular election (Australia and the United States) to indirect election through constituent governments (Germany), and even to the appointment of friends and partisan colleagues of the prime minister (Canada)” (Watts,1998).

In simple terms, federalism is essentially about shared and self-rule is about sharing powers, functions and responsibilities, against the backdrop of forces of plurality and diversity pulling the people apart. In accordance with this principle considered by Political Scientists as the fundamental plank upon which the concept of Federalism rests, Watts (1996) submits that there are 23 federations in the world. “They vary widely, however, in the character of the underlying social diversity, in the form and scope of the distribution of legislative and administrative powers and financial resources, in the form and processes of the shared representative institutions, in the scope and role of the courts as constitutional umpires, in the character of intergovernmental relations, and in the processes for flexibility and constitutional adjustment”.

The variety out there again reinforces the argument against the ‘Nigerian’ assumption of one Federalism as true and another false. It is absolutely erroneous. As I have repeatedly argued, every federal arrangement is a work in progress, each with its imperfections, with no finishing line for any to arrive at, that it might be adjudged as having attained perfection. On account of constant friction and collision by what Tekena Tamuno described as ‘centre-seeking’ and ‘centre-fleeing’ forces, federations are often under stress and in a constant state of flux, coming under pressure to undergo recreation and adaptation.

In North America, Canada has been struggling with what Ronald Watts described as “three decades of political and constitutional crises, rooted deeply in its fundamental cultural cleavages”. Her neighbour, United States has her issues to deal with as the national and state governments clash. Mexico has its own issues, just like Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela in South America. The situation is the same in Australia, countries in Europe, India and of course, in Africa as well.

While the nature of the stress in Nigeria, as to be expected, does differ from that of other places, that does not in any way vitiate the position that what is in practice in Nigeria is federalism, contrary to what some argue. It is simply a confirmation of the fact that federalism is a coat of many colours, with our green-white-green been one of the variants.

I recall that it was in the course of our conversations around federalism five years ago, that the distinguished Prince, Adekanmi Ademiluyi anchored his submission around a statement he attributed to the former Canadian Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker that ” Federalism means that you eat what you kill”. I disagreed with his position then and I, obviously, still do now. I don’t even think the essence of Federalism is about pulling apart, as the statement seems to suggest, as it is about pulling together. I do not think the essence of the coming together is that each might farm with the mind of self, by eating on the strength of the kill, rather I would suggest that it is more about broadening the collective base, that there might be enough for the collective good.

I have, however, only just decided to check up on the statement by John Diefenbaker to gain insight into the context in which he might have made it. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track it. Well, what does it matter? The statement provoked enough curiosity in me to have inspired this interrogation. Taking a second look at it, I cannot find grounds to agree with it. I would even argue that Diefenbaker must have been misled about what federalism to have made such a statement. What will be the point of a federation if it is all about self? Why will anyone want to be a part of a federation if the fundamental plank upon which a group, diverse in culture and other respects, is just to “eat what you kill”?

As I have repeatedly argued, federalism is primarily about pulling together, with accommodation for the interests and peculiarities of the component parts, with a view to widening the pool and leveraging on opportunities that come with size and other factors.

Indeed, there is the economic component embedded in the political shell of federalism and for some, it is about the political component tucked inside an economic shell, especially for federalist arrangements that started out as ‘customs unions’. I do not even think that the primary essence of federalism is about eating. Eating what one kills is not and cannot be the driver for federalism. Fundamental to the concept is shared duties and responsibilities with governance.

As we have come to see, the Nigerian elite has managed to make the arrangement here about eating, the same way everything else is reduced to food. That misunderstanding of the essence of Federalism is at the root of a lot of the crises – real, imagined or contrived. It is what is fueling the confusion around VAT. It is behind the divisive and bigoted positions increasing dominating the civic space. It is about people assuming themselves to be better endowed arguing that it should be about “eat what you kill”. If only the mentality can change from that to “eat what you need”.

The argument about eating what you kill is largely about revenue allocation. On that, I had this to say in 2017:

“Much has been made of the revenue allocation system which many see as rather lopsided in favour of the FG and have called for a review. One Senator declared the formula being used by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) illegal’ by some weird deduction.

There is really nothing new to the debate as finding the most appropriate revenue allocation formulae, just like the debate, is an age-long one. Some recommendations have been made, just as reviews have taken place over time, especially In the last 40 years.

Before independence, there was the Phillipson Commission set up in 1946, the Hicks-Phillipson Commission of 1953, the Raisman Commission in 1958 and the Binn’s Commission of 1964, even after independence, all with the mandate to work out an acceptable formula, to no satisfaction of any group.

There was the Dina Commission in 1968, the Aboyade Technical Committee of 1977 and there was the Okigbo Commission which largely influenced the 1981 Revenue Act which allocated 55% to FG, 30.5% to State Governments, 10% to LGs and 4.5% for Special funds.

Modifications were further made in 1984 and 1992 which allocated 48.5% to FG, 24% to State Governments, 20% to LGs and 7.5% for Special funds, of which 1% for mineral-producing states on the basis of derivation.

By virtue of the current formula, about 52.68 % is allocated to the federal government from the Federation Account, 26.70% to the 36 states and 20.60% to the local government councils in the Federation.

Please note that sharing revenue among State governments and local governments were done on the basis of 4 principles, with different weights attached to each – population; equality of states or LGs, as the case might be; social development factor, revenue factor.

Also note how the allocation to Local Governments, in terms of percentage, going from 10% to 20%, even when many argue that the LGs are mostly non-functional, delivering very little in value.

So, by and large, there have been only marginal reviews in the structure of the allocation formula, over the years, especially the vertical aspect of it.

That, in spite of the fact that experts like Prof Okigbo and others have worked on it. So, when some reduce this to a North-South thing or hide behind the finger of restructuring to push it, it is obvious that they are not as guided on process or details behind some of the issues they pick up or simply echo”.

So, am I saying that there is nothing wrong with the system as it is? Far from it. The point I make is that Federalism is a work in progress and that as the journey goes on, what people do is engage in the process of negotiation to navigate into a more acceptable arrangement. It is not about seeking to bring the roof down. Our undue obsession with who eats what, when and how, makes our conversations convoluted and unhelpful. How we redirect the conversation to enlarging the pot, rather than wanting to have a bigger spoon or even making away with the pot should be of greater concern, as I think that is what federalism is supposed to foster.

There is nothing to suggest, either from the historical, ideological or philosophical premise, that federalism is supposed to be a closed shop arrangement, which locks one variant in and a different type out. It makes allowance even for hybrids, with quasi-federalist arrangements as well receiving the nod, as fundamental to the adoption of federalism is the desire to seek accommodation for forces seeking to pull and push. That being the case, where each federation finds its solution and how it adopts it will be up to it, as long as it is democratic, for Adele Jinadu maintains that “democracy is a condition of federalism”.

The challenge with some of our conversations is not just a defective recollection of history but the tragedy of assumptions about a number of things. This time, it is about what federalism is. I would suggest that the real essence of Federalism is in the traditional motto of the US – “e pluribus unum” which means “out of many, one. At the end of the day, we must remember the words of J.J. Linz that “federalism can only assure that nobody could be fully unhappy but certainly not that everybody will be happy with the solution.”

In Football, not everyone in the squad can make the team, not everyone in the team makes the field at once. Perhaps, there is something there as a cue. It should always be about what is in the best interest of the collective. As someone says, federalism can be a flexible system if the partners themselves are capable of flexibility.

Simbo Olorunfemi can be reached via simboor@yahoo.com.

By Rabiu Muhammad Gama

Introduction

Have you ever wondered why Americans go on vacation while Brits go on holiday? I am sure you have. Or haven’t you ever heard that American kids like candy while British kids are crazy about sweets? Our Law of Contract lecturer, who was so lucky to do his PhD in England, once told us how nice his flat was when he was in England. On the other hand, one of our learned professors, who was privileged to have some training from Harvard Law School, lamented that he suffered before he could afford an apartment during his stay in the US. Curious?  Well, I can’t actually blame you for that. I think all these go to show us how beautiful the English language is.

British and American English

That famous Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw, once said, “the United States and the United Kingdom are two countries divided by a common language.” That was Shaw. And he wasn’t entirely wrong.

There are many varieties of English today: American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, to mention but a few. However, for some historical and accidental factors, American and British Englishes are the most widely used across the globe today. These two Englishes,  I am confident you may be aware of, are not always the same. However, they are not very different either. As far as this article is concerned, American English is that variety of the English language widely written and spoken in the United States and some parts of Canada. While British English, just as the name hints, is the standard dialect of the English language spoken and written in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

The most noticeable areas where British and American Englishes differ are vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and, though very rarely, idiomatic expressions. Forget about pronunciation; it does not count – as far as Standard English is concerned, pronunciation is not an accurate barometer for measuring “good English”. Ask around if you doubt me.

Vocabulary

This is arguably the most significant area where the two Englishes differ. Americans don’t say lifter; they say elevator. It’s the Britons that call it lifter. Had Leonel Messi moved to Manchester City rather than Paris Saint-Germain, he would have been playing football by now. But, if he were to move to any football team in the US, say, the indomitable Seattle Sounders or the New York City FC, he would be playing soccer. Donald Trump, the most confused American president in recent history, is crazy about expensive automobiles. It may shock you to hear that the current Prime Minister of England, Boris Johnson, doesn’t know how to drive a car! If you go to the US, you will need an airplane to commute from Orlando to Las Vegas (the Sin City) because the cities are very far from each other. Go to the UK afterwards; you won’t need an aeroplane to move from Liverpool to Manchester – the two cities are only a stone’s throw from each other.

Spelling

There are many spelling differences between American and British English. Words like color, labor and honor are found only in American English. In England, they would write these words as colour, labour and honour, respectively. In words like these, where the Americans use an “o”, the Britons would use “ou”. Where an American would ask you if you know any good theater, a Briton would ask you if you know any good theatre, “er” in American English changes to “re” in British English. The Britons organise programmes, but the Americans only organize programs. I am sure you got this last point, too, don’t you?

Grammar

In addition to spelling and vocabulary, there are specific grammar differences between British and American English. For instance, collective nouns are considered singular in American English, while they’re mostly treated as plural in British English. For example,  where an American would tell you that “his family is large”, a Briton would, most likely, tell you that “his family are large.” The Americans always take a shower, while the Britons mostly have a shower. The word “gotten”, the past particle of “get”, is now dead and buried in British English. Surprisingly enough, the word is still alive and kicking in American English.

On a final note, American English is the child of British English. Nonetheless, the former is the most widely written and spoken English today, thanks to America’s technology and robust economy. So, don’t be shocked whenever you read that the Brits actually introduced the language to the Americans because it’s true. Anyway, it is not uncommon to see a child that overshadows his dad. It’s, however, very unusual, perhaps unprecedented, to see a child reporting his mom to an anti-graft agency!

Rabiu Muhammad Gama is a level 300 Law student and  English Enthusiast. He can be reached on rabiuminuwa327@gmail.com or 09061912994.

By Muhammad Sabiu

The United Arab Emirates has declared thirty-eight individuals wanted, of which six are Nigerian citizens.

The declaration is in connection to allegations of involvement in terrorism and related activities, which had the names of the individuals included on the country’s terror designation list.

A foreign news platform, Al Arabiya, reports, “The decision, WAM stated, comes within the framework of the UAE’s efforts to target and disrupt networks associated with the financing of terrorism and its associated activities.”

Other individuals on the UAE’s terror list are from Iran, Iraq, India, Russia, Jordan, Britain and others.

According to the Daily Trust newspaper, the six Nigerians are Abdurrahaman Ado Musa, Salihu Yusuf Adamu, Bashir Ali Yusuf, Muhammed Ibrahim Isa, Ibrahim Ali Alhassan and Surajo Abubakar Muhammad.