SNC or Scattered Monologues?

I have usually been cautious about the call for a “sovereign” national conference. I am a student of constitutional law, and I understand the complexity of trying to vest “sovereignty” in a “conference”, especially while there is an elected president, a dual chamber national assembly comprised of senators and members of a house of representatives; thirty-six state governors (many of whose elections have been tested in the courts and affirmed by the judiciary, up to the nation’s Supreme Court); and houses of assembly. If we were to convene a “sovereign national conference” (SNC), what would happen to all these institutions and offices? Would they be in abeyance, or be abolished? Could those offices continue concurrently with such a conference? What would happen to the constitution itself, since it doesn’t recognise or envisage such a temporary (or permanent) transfer of sovereignty? Would our armed forces, the intelligence agencies and police report to such a sovereign conference or would they continue to report to the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, whom the existing constitution regards as having operational control of those agencies? What if the conference is unable to reach consensus (since all agreements will have to be negotiated) on issues before it? Does sovereignty revert to the elected institutions or will it be extinguished or dissolved? Or will extra-national institutions (United Nations, African Union, etc) assume authority over the country? Will the judiciary recognise such a conference? Questions about the mode of representation and other modalities of convening, operating and reaching agreements at such a conference so far remain unanswered. Clearly, it is easier to call for SNC than to define exactly what the implications and other details of the proposed conference are, or will be. On the other hand, I am also not impressed by those who simply dismiss calls for SNC, insult its advocates, or simply raise queries without putting forward alternative views or recommendations towards resolving our current grave national condition, which confirms that the national question regarding Nigeria is far from settled. When “Boko Haram” and its sponsors call for Islamic Sharia all over Northern Nigeria, or indeed all over Nigeria, demands which are also not envisaged within the context of the current constitution, aren’t they in effect calling for some extra-constitutional discussion about the nature of the Nigerian federation? Why hasn’t “Boko Haram” forwarded its demands to the national assembly as proposals for constitutional amendment? Why did arguments over zoning and/or rotation ultimately result in Northern post-election violence last year? Why didn’t the Niger-Delta militants present their grievances to the national assembly for required legislation? Why did they resort to armed militancy? Why did late President Yar’Adua agree to engage with the militants and substantially accede to their demands? When Northern governors gather requesting review of revenue allocation formula in their favour in order to redress Northern poverty, aren’t they asking for some sort of negotiation? Why is South-West Nigeria perpetually calling for true federalism? Can these calls be ignored in perpetuity? Why do Igbos (and increasingly many others) celebrate Ojukwu as a hero? Isn’t that a sign that his battle to enthrone a more equitable union and reject hegemony now resonates with many more Nigerians? Why are South-South leaders looking to President Jonathan’s eventual exit from office with dread, worried that the region will simply return to being the goose that lays the golden petro-dollars, while others benefit, and they look on in despoiled anger? Why do we so regularly turn upon each other, killing and maiming fellow citizens in ethnic, religious, political or communal bloodletting? Why are nomadic herdsmen killing farmers and indigenes all over North-Central Nigeria while the whole country keeps quiet? Why is there a war going on over ownership of territory in Jos? Why do we have 60 percent poverty and 24 percent unemployment in spite of so much economic potential? Aren’t these all symptoms of something deeper and more fundamental? In spite of all these, there are those who arrogantly insist that every important issue about Nigeria has been settled. What type of spouse tells his partner and their children who complain about their family, with multiple instances of crisis and dysfunction, that every important matter concerning their home is settled? Wouldn’t it be more curious if the complainant happens to provide 85 percent of household resources while the dismissive spouse is economically dependent on the unhappy partner? Why are virtually all ethnic and regional groups in Nigeria retreating towards ethnic and regional formations and development agendas – BRACED Commission in the South-South; DAWN (Development Agenda for Western Nigeria) in the South-West; the usual Arewa/Northern formations (which recently appear to recognise the imperative of focusing on development rather than political power and religion); and the South-East governors who would most certainly follow suit. One may question whether a sovereign conference is possible, but we certainly need a national constitutional conference where leaders and representatives of all ethnic nationalities, the six geo-political regions and other stakeholders can have a sincere conversation about the structure and future of this dysfunctional unitary federation. A national dialogue is better than the scattered and intermittent monologues expressed through violence, threats and mutual intimidation currently going on. Of course if we don’t agree to talk now, we can have post-mortems later.