Politics
Sovereign National Conference And Nigeria’s Polity
If they want to initiate moves to breakup the country, fine, if they want to secede and form their own Oduduwa Republic or the MOSSOB people want to re-enact the Biafran tragedy, they are welcome to it. But they should know that it is not going to be their own decision only; it is going to be the decision of all Nigerians.”
These were the words of social critic and second Republic parliamentarian, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, who, by his closeness to the corridors of power in Nigeria in a long while, and attachment to governance can unarguably be regarded as an elder-statesman. He spoke at a recent meeting he convened on the nagging issue of Sovereign National Conference (SNC).
Put subtly, Mohammed expressed the opinion that those who clamour for a SNC are doing so out of their selfish interest, either to favour themselves, or the group they represent as against the idea that it is in the interest of the country at large.
In an interview in “The Sun” of March 4, 2012, Mohammed hinted that having an SNC is not a wrong idea but that all key stakeholders in the Nigerian State must be given an opportunity to be represented, if for nothing, to avoid a reoccurrence of the 1967 to 1970 Nigerian Civil War.
According to Mohammed, “Where an issue has become a national issue, rightly or wrongly, whether the issue has been properly defined at all, and we are at the risk of being dragged or pushed to slip into another Civil War, without knowing it, I think anybody of conscience, especially those of us who are young men, we have a responsibility to say, ‘look, yes here I am, if this is a valid and meaningful discussion, I will participate.’
Consequently, he said “let us go ahead to have the conference, but I want to warn every Nigerian that what they call Sovereign National Conference is nothing but a complete transfer of power from the current leaders of the executive branch, from the legislative and even certain judicial powers to the SNC, which will be sovereign, it will be the ultimate authority in the land.”
Part of Mohammed’s grievance over the call for a SNC stems from his belief that proponents of the conference consulted Balarabe Musa, who allegedly spoke as a representative of the Northern Nigeria.
“That, to me, showed the level of duplicity and audacity of this people and those behind the calls for the SNC. If you want people to be represented, you look for their genuine representatives, the genuine people who speak for them.
“Whether what they say is pleasant or not, you know that they are speaking for some people. If you speak to a rather nobody like Balarabe Musa, then he will speak for nobody. Then when it suits you, you say that Balarabe Musa is representing the North, and when it does not suit you, you say the North does not like SNC.”
On record, proponents of the call for an SNC express the belief that the National Assembly, made up of the Senate and House of Representatives, as constituted, will be incapable to come up with a truly representative Nigerian constitution which would comprehensively address the anomalies in the Nigerian State, hence the call for an SNC, which they believe, will be more representative of all facets of the Nigerian populace.
They say from decisions that would be reached at the proposed conference, an improved federal constitution will be drafted from the 1999 edition.
However, renowned legal luminary, Chief Ricahrd Akinjide, thought otherwise; according to him, “people think as long as you change the constitution, things will change. I don’t accept that, I think that is nonsense.
“The fault is not in the constitution, it is in the people.” He gave credence to the Chinese constitution, saying as small as it is, it takes care of a far higher population than Nigeria.
“Go and look at the Chinese constitution, it is a very small document, and is being used to govern 1.4 billion people so, even if you summon another conference and write a new constitution, can you tell me it is going to work?”
The major problem, Akinjide said, is that “Nigeria is just a country, not a nation.”
This, he explained, is because “you have people shouting they want Yoruba President, they want Igbo President, and they want Northern President. Why don’t we say we want a Nigerian President?
“No matter from which part of the country he or she comes from, until we see ourselves as brothers and sisters, this nation cannot move forward.
“The problem we have is that when somebody from another section is the President, another person is agitating and wanting the President to come from their area as if the other President is not elected by the people of the country,” he said.
This, to a large extent, adds credence to the activities of the Boko Haram sect with base in the North, which has produced the greatest number of the country’s leadership from independence in 1960. Boko Haram’s initial grudge was against Western education including its development paradigm, which they claim was inimical to their existence and why they would prefer a Sharia country.
Currently, they claim their actions are necessitated by apparent poverty in the North, warranted by unjust revenue allocation, as alleged recently by Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, with full backing by northern governors as clearly enunciated by Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State. He said his state got between N2.4bn and N4.5bn monthly allocation, while some others got 20 times the amount.
Therefore, “it will not serve any useful purpose if some parts are not doing well while others are doing exceptionally well,” hence “the pressure from Boko Haram will continue until we are able to find a solution.”
The question, therefore, is how will this solution, or whatever solution for that matter, come if there is no opportunity for dialogue by the Nigerian populace which constitute the sovereignty of the country?
Meanwhile, the Senate says any quest for a change in the political configuration of the country must be pursued through members of the National Assembly because it must follow stipulations of the constitution, particularly Section 9, which prescribed how the constitution may be amended.
However, The sun, as quoted earlier, disagrees with this stand in its editorial, saying “We disagree with the position of the Senate that Nigerians can only dialogue on the way forward and the best political configuration for the country through the politicians in the National Assembly.
“This preposterous idea stands on its head. Sovereignty without any equivocation belongs to the people, and not the politicians in the National Assembly. Election of politicians as representatives of the people in the National Assembly does not in any way limit Nigerians’ right to self-expression and self-determination. Legislators should be subject to the wishes of the Nigerian people, and not the other way round. Any view contrary to this is an affront on democracy.”
Senator Pius Akpor Ewherido, representing Delta Central Senatorial District seems to have this in mind when he said in The Nation of Thursday, March 15, that “the democratic institutions that you see are not as free as you look at them. So you cannot just come up and say it should be as it is in the constitution.
“The provisions in the constitution are being flouted daily and nothing is happening.”
There could not have been a better picture than the fore-going that the issue about the SNC is not whether it should hold, but how best it can be held in such a way that decisions will truly represent all facets of the Nigerian state, without prejudice to any personal interest seem to be the crux of the matter, and on which concentration should be focused for a better Nigeria.
Alhaji Abubakar, who is also the 2027 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), stressed that Chief Obasanjo’s latest public outburst against him is yet another failed attempt to rewrite history.
Alhaji Abubakar specifically said that if the true history of Chief Obasanjo’s political journey is ever written—free from selective recollection and personal bitterness, he (Atiku) would feature prominently as one of those whom God used to change the course of his (Obasanjo) life and political career.
These were contained in a statement the Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to the former Vice President, Mr Phrank Shaibu, released in which Atiku said he watched the former President’s interview with profound sadness, but not anger, because it reflected the disposition of a man who has allowed personal resentment to cloud historical truth.
Alhaji Abubakar said the genesis of Chief Obasanjo’s hostility towards him is well known to Nigerians, stressing that he is proud that he stood against the third-term agenda and stood by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In the words of Alhaji Abubakar: “I have no apology whatsoever for frustrating every attempt to subvert our democracy for personal ambition. If Chief Obasanjo’s bitterness stems from my refusal to support an unconstitutional third term, then I wear that resentment as a badge of honour.
“No individual, regardless of his status or accomplishments, is bigger than the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Constitution is supreme, and I chose Nigeria over personal loyalty”.
Alhaji Abubakar noted that the struggle against the third-term agenda was never about two individuals, but about preserving Nigeria’s constitutional democracy for future generations.
He said: “The Nigerian people won that battle. Democracy won that battle. History has already delivered its verdict. It Is therefore unfortunate that the same man whose unconstitutional ambition was resisted now seeks to sit in judgment over those who defended the Constitution”.
The ADC Presidential candidate said it was particularly instructive that barely twenty-four hours before Chief Obasanjo’s latest outburst, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, publicly paid glowing tribute to the economic management team he led, describing it as “the best Nigeria has ever had”.
“Whether or not the timing is merely coincidental is for Nigerians to judge. What is beyond dispute, however, is that while distinguished Nigerians who served at the highest levels continue to acknowledge my contributions to one of Nigeria’s most successful periods of economic management, Chief Obasanjo appears determined to diminish them.
“Chief Obasanjo may choose not to appreciate my role in building one of Nigeria’s most prosperous economic eras, but history has been far kinder. The record speaks for itself, and so do the testimonies of those who worked closely with that administration,” he said.
Alhaji Abubakar further stated that Nigerians also deserve to remember the other side of history which Chief Obasanjo conveniently omits, saying: “History records that while Chief Obasanjo was in prison, I stood firmly by him. I supported his family, worked tirelessly with other patriots for his release and never wavered in my belief that he deserved his freedom”.
He further said: “When he eventually regained his freedom, he had little to his name. I received him, clothed him, ensured he was properly cared for and extended every support necessary to help him regain his footing.
“Beyond that, I mobilised political structures, built alliances and made enormous personal and political sacrifices that culminated in his emergence as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.
Alhaji Abubakar, however, said he harbours no regrets over any of those acts.
According to him: “Do I regret helping Chief Obasanjo? Absolutely not. When God gives you the opportunity to lift another human being, you do so without expecting repayment. Acts of kindness are matters of conscience, not commercial transactions”.
He added, however, that gratitude should never be replaced with revisionism.
Alhaji Abubakar particularly expressed disappointment that, at a time when Nigeria is battling economic hardship, mass unemployment, insecurity and widespread despair, a former President would devote so much energy to recycling old grudges instead of contributing solutions to the country’s challenges.
In the words of Atiku: “The 2027 election should be about rebuilding Nigeria, restoring security, reviving the economy and giving hope to the next generation—not reopening old political wounds”.
The former Vice President said he had deliberately maintained restraint over the years out of respect for the office Chief Obasanjo once occupied and in deference to the relationship they once shared.
He said: “That restraint should never be mistaken for weakness or docility. There comes a point when silence in the face of repeated distortions of history ceases to be a virtue. While I have no desire to engage in a public quarrel with a man I once stood beside in his most difficult moments, neither will I permit falsehoods, half-truths and calculated attempts to rewrite history to go unanswered.
“Chief Obasanjo is entitled to his opinions. He is entitled to his personal grievances. What he is not entitled to, are his own facts,” Alhaji Abubakar insisted.
The ADC presidential candidate reaffirmed that his attention remains firmly fixed on Nigeria’s future.
According to him; “I have chosen the path of service over resentment, vision over vendetta and national renewal over personal recrimination. Those who mistake my civility for capitulation, or my restraint for weakness, make a grave mistake.
“History is stubborn. It cannot be rewritten by bitterness, nor erased by repeated falsehoods. In the end, history will render its verdict—and so will the Nigerian people,” he stated.
According to the electoral umpire, campaigns for the presidential and National Assembly elections will commence on August 19, 2026, and end on January 15, 2027, exactly 24 hours before the elections scheduled for January 16, 2027.
INEC also announced that campaigns for governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections will begin on September 9, 2026, and conclude on February 5, 2027, ahead of the polls slated for February 6, 2027.
The commission explained that the campaign schedule complies with the Electoral Act 2026, which stipulates that electioneering activities must not begin earlier than 150 days before an election and must end at least 24 hours before voting.
INEC urged political parties, candidates and other stakeholders to strictly adhere to the approved timetable and conduct their campaigns in accordance with the law, while encouraging the public to obtain electoral information only from its official communication channels to avoid misinformation.