National dialogue: More questions than answers after committee’s visit to Jos

Many Nigerians who attended the North Central zonal interactive session on the proposed national conference in Jos, the Plateau State capital, are of the view that the conference may not be any different from previous attempts to get ethnic nationalities to reach a consensus on the nation’s future.

 The Jos gathering was supposed to collate views from Nigerians on what should be discussed during the conference.

 However, observers are of the view that if the outcome of the Jos interactive session is anything to go by, Nigerians should as well consider the conference as another talking shop.

 Not only was the session poorly organised and poorly publicised, the level of attendance did not reflect the attitude of a nation hoping to get things right. A majority of those who wanted to present memoranda to the committee were not aware of its presence in Jos.

 To make matters worse, committee members spent over seventy per cent of their one-day session visiting government officials and traditional rulers. For a session that was supposed to collate views from states in the North central region – Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa, Kogi, Kwara and the Federal Capital Territory – only three states: Plateau, Benue and Nasarawa, were represented. Groups representing ethnic nationalities and religious bodies were not adequately represented.

 Prof. Audu Gambo of the Centre for Conflict and Management Studies is one of several Nigerians who are saddened by the turn of events.

 He said, “Truly speaking, the attendance we have at this interactive session is not a true representation of the diversity of the Middle belt as a geographical zone. There are so many states that are not represented here. Kogi, Kwara, FCT Abuja.”

 Even though he presented the position of the Tarok nation, Gambo was not satisfied with the number of those who attended. “As you can see, the hall is virtually empty. It shows clearly people do not seem to attach any importance to the national project. And so honestly, if they are going to arrange the conference on the basis of what is happening here today, we may not have exactly what we wanted for us to be able to resolve the national question once and for all.” He pointed out.

Gambo also said, “In other words, those who called this conference a sham, to a large extent, have been vindicated because the mode of organisation of the interactive session is so poor, it was poorly organised, really and truly it is a huge indictment on the organisers of this session.

“They need to do better than this if the national dialogue must have credibility, must have national acceptance, whose resolutions at the end of the day will be warmly embraced by Nigerians.”

 Gambo was not alone. Mr. Solomon Dalung, who presented a memorandum on behalf of the Northern Elders’ Forum said that the session did not live up to its billing. He said, “To be honest, the interactive session failed far beyond my expectations because the interactive session is intended to kick-start the mobilisation of Nigerians  and from those that gathered here and the turn-out, it does not represent one per cent of the entire aggregate aspirations of the purported geographical aspirations concept that is supposed to be discussed here.”

 Dalung also said that the session had justified the stand of those who were opposed to the conference. “It is a very sound justification of those who said that the conference is a sham and a mere jamboree.

“I belong to the school of thought that the conference is a diversionary tactics to engage critical political elements in a talking shop where the unfolding agenda on how they would be undone in 2015 is going to be manipulated in their absence.

“Otherwise, what we need now in Nigeria is a sovereign national conference because section 14 of the constitution vests the sovereignty of this country in Nigerians and Nigerians should now decide that after 100 years of existence as a country, they should reappraise the social, economic and political relationships and then look at how the country has moved within this period and then look at those things that require changes from within.”

 According to him, the intentions of those that conceived the idea has been exposed because the gathering has been reduced to a talking shop. He wondered if those participating in the proposed conference were going to discuss the future of Nigerians in their absence like what was done during the Berlin Conference of 1884.

 An activist, Mr. Samson Itodo, who has been monitoring the sessions on behalf of civil society organisations, said that there was need for a cautious optimism in predicting the outcome of the conference.

 He based his arguments on the fact that in the few sessions he had monitored, there appeared not to be the presence of people that were supposed to drive the dialogue.

 Itodo, while alluding to the fact that it might be too early to draw conclusions said, “As part of the rules of monitoring, it will be premature for me to start running into conclusions, but I will say that in terms of participation, it is very low because a lot of citizens were not present today to make their views known.  We must understand that the rationale behind a national dialogue must put people first and where the people do not participate, you actually question first the design and the implementation of initiatives like this.

 “Yes, we understand the fact that citizens tend to be apathetic and I think the reason why they are, is that they were not told. For those of us who are monitors, it was until we got to Jos that we even knew the venue and the time for the interactive session.  We are going to Minna on Wednesday. We don’t even know where the venue is; we don’t know when the time is.  We are going to Calabar on Friday; we don’t know where the venue and time is. So how do you expect people to participate?

He, however, justified the need for a national conference. The activist said the need for Nigerians to talk cannot be over emphasised.

 He observed that holding a national conversation was very important because of our socio-cultural and historical realities some of which have contributed to some of the problems bedevilling  the nation today.

 Itodo however noted that “It is one thing to be justified, it is another to design a programme in such a way that it encourages citizens’ participation. If they don’t participate, don’t expect commitment from them because participation is very key and commitment is very important for the success of an engagement like this that is supposed to be people-driven.”

 Plateau State Governor, Mr. Jonah Jang, who earlier set the tone for the interactive session when members of the committee visited him, objected to the idea that the outcome of the dialogue be sent to the National Assembly.

 He said the idea in itself was worrisome because the National Assembly is currently grappling with the constitutional review process.

 Itodo agreed with Jang when he said that even the way the Senate voted on the constitutional amendment clearly showed that it was actually against the people.

 He, however expressed support that the proposition that the outcome of the conference be subjected to a referendum.

 Itodo said, “There are other climes that had adopted this strategy because it is about participation, which is the essence of democracy. If citizens  don’t participate, where do you expect to get legitimacy from? And so we need to go back to the people after the conference by either subjecting it to a referendum or granting it its sovereign nature so that from the conference, whatever decisions are taken become binding.

 Itodo explained to Nigerians opposed to the conference that they actually had the capacity to make it work. He noted that if the conveners of the conference designed it to fail, Nigerians actually have the capacity to change the tone of the dialogue.

 He said, “I will say that if it is designed to fail, the citizens have the capacity to change the conversation. Whatever undertones we have presently, the citizens have the chance to change the conversation because the only way they can do that is to participate and monitor the dialogue to a logical conclusion.

“If the outcome does not represent the will and aspirations of the people, then they can rise up and turn against whatever comes out of it.” Like Itodo, many who attended the North Central zonal consultations were of the view that subjecting the outcome of the conference to the scrutiny of the National Assembly was a sure way of ensuring that it was “dead on arrival.”