This war is not for the extermination of the Igbos, it is for the federal unity of Nigeria and the happiness and prosperity of its people

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

Broadcast by Chief Obafemi Awolowo as Nigeria’s Commissioner for Finance and Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive during the Biafran War. The speech was delivered on 1st October, 1967.

With regard to the first line of approach, it will interest you to know that, ever since the launching of the military operations, the Federal Military Government has embarked on strict austerity measures, some of which are meant only for the interim period, whilst others are intended to remain as a permanent feature of our public life. I will briefly enumerate some of these measures.

1. i) Every Ministry, other than the Ministries of Defence and Internal Affairs, is enjoined to make 1 per cent savings in its approved estimates of expenditure. But from the next’ financial year, even stricter economy will be enjoined on all Ministries and extra-Ministerial departments.
2. ii) The Federal Executive council has set up a Committee to examine the structure of Government-sponsored Corporations and Companies in the light of the reports and recommendations of the Tribunals set up to inquire into the affairs of some of them. This is done with a view to putting these Corporations and Companies, properly and viably, on their feet. At the moment, most of them are ailing and sick; and the Federal Military Government is determined, not only to cure them, but to prevent a future relapse of their ailments, so that they may be self-sufficient and profitable, and hence cease to constitute an incessant drain on the finances of the Federal Government.

iii) Capital projects in respect of which the Federal Military Government has not irrevocably committed itself are postponed for the time being.

1. iv) All Federal Commissioners have agreed to observe a stringent Code of Conduct which precludes them from enjoying any benefit, and receiving any allowance, other than their salaries.
2. v) A Committee has been set up to consider the advisability of reducing the number of our Foreign Missions. These Missions cost us a fortune in foreign exchange, and there is no doubt that some of them are maintained for prestige purposes only.
3. vi) Steps are being actively taken to recover arrears of income tax and duties. Arrears of income tax amount to well over £4m., and those of excise duties to over £5m.

vii) Pending the setting up, at an early date, of a Tribunal of Inquiry for the purpose of recovering ill-gotten gains made by some public officers and their self-employed collaborators, the Inland Revenue has already assessed to tax the amounts of money which some of the persons, who gave evidence before the Tribunals which inquired into certain Corporations, had admitted as having been legitimately made by them as incomes, but which they had not in the past declared as such to the Inland Revenue. As a result of investigations made up to the end of September, a total assessment of about £2m, has been made. Much more than double this amount is expected when the investigation is completed. I would like to say in passing that the taxes collected from these assessments will be offset against the total amount of any individual confiscation.

viii) A much tighter control than ever before is now being exercised in the use of our foreign exchange reserve, care being taken, at the same time, to ensure that our foreign trade is in no way hindered.

But when all these have been done, there is still a considerable gap to be filled if we are to fulfil the social objectives to which I have previously referred, and to which the Federal Military Government has committed itself. It is in order to fill this gap that the Federal Military Government has decided to raise additional revenue from sources which I will now outline to you.

But before I do so, I would like to state the principles by which we have been guided. They are:

1. i) to save our foreign exchange reserve from being run down to a dangerous level;
2. ii) to preserve the strength of the Nigerian £;

iii) to have enough financial resources for the purposes which I have previously mentioned, namely: rehabilitation, resettlement, reconstruction and new development;

1. iv) to encourage local industries, and thereby save foreign exchange, and progressively achieve self-sufficiency in, at least, non-durable consumer goods; and
2. v) to obviate the danger of a runaway or uncontrollable inflation.

The measures which the Federal Military Government has decided to introduce for the purpose of raising additional revenue, and conserving our foreign exchange come under five heads.

1. IMPORT AND EXCISE DUTIES

A number of carefully selected items of goods will, henceforth, attract various rates of duty. These measures are designed to raise additional revenue as well as conserve our foreign exchange. The details of the items of goods involved, and the actual rates of duty imposed upon them will be published later tonight. In a full year a total revenue of about £7m is expected from these-sources.

2. NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION SURCHARGE:

For the duration of this emergency and for the whole period of reconstruction, there will be a 5 per cent surcharge on duties payable on all items of imports and excisable goods, with the exception of the following:

1. i) Stockfish
2. ii) Milk

iii) Salt

1. iv) Sugar
2. v) Raw materials imported at concessionary rates of duty by approved manufacturers under the Approved User Scheme
3. vi) Bread

vii) Flour

viii) Soap

In this connection, it is-pertinent to bring to the remembrance of older Nigerians, and to the notice of younger ones, that during the Second World War, a surcharge of 25 per cent on specific import duties was imposed. The surcharge remained in operation for more than eight years from late 1939 to5th March, 1948.

A yearly revenue of about £9m, is expected from this source.

3. DIRECT TAX:

As a result of the creation of the Lagos State, the only sphere of direct tax in which the Federal Government can now operate with complete freedom is that of company tax. Even here, a good deal of circumspection is called for. An increase in the present rate of company tax might have the effect of driving out of existence those companies which only manage to keep their heads above water. Whatever we do, we must not kill any of the geese that lay the golden eggs, however poor their laying may be. But just as there are poor struggling companies which make meagre profits, so there are rich and prosperous ones whose profits are comparatively large. The Federal Government has, therefore, decided to impose a super-tax of 2/- in the pound, on companies whose taxable profits exceed whichever is the greater of –

1. i) £5,000 for a year of assessment, or
2. ii) 15 per Cent of the company’s issued and paid-up share capital.

It is expected that this imposition will yield an additional revenue of £2.9m, for the rest of the present financial year.

4. ONE NIGERIA BONDS:

The spontaneity and generosity, with which you have all donated to Troops’ Comfort and Relief Funds, are a practical demonstration of your loyalty to the noble cause to which the Federal Military Government has dedicated itself. There are those of you who have donated once-for-all substantial sums to these funds. There are others who pay their own donations instalmentally, and who, to this end, have given irrevocable standing instructions for 5 per cent of their salaries to be deducted every month for three months consecutively. The Federal Military Government is exceedingly grateful to you all for your financial sacrifices. But it will like you to do more.

Accordingly, it has decided to launch on 1st  December, 1967, a Compulsory Savings Scheme. The Savings Scheme would take the form of mandatory deduction of 5 per cent from your salaries and wages for investment in bonds to be known as the ‘ONE NIGERIA BONDS’. This scheme will also apply to all self-employed persons who pay tax. Professionals, traders, businessmen, farmers, and all, will be included. In their case, the deduction of 5 per cent will be made from their taxable incomes. With regard to flat-rate taxpayers, however, only a flat rate of 10/–  will be required from each of them. In every case, the amount of savings collectible will be added to the 1968 tax assessment and, after collection, will be invested in the bonds in the name of the payer.

The funds invested, under this scheme, will be redeemable after ten years with interest. Compulsory subscriptions to the bond will last for only twelve months. Thereafter, the Government will examine the possibility of making it voluntary.

This Scheme will be limited to Nigerian citizens only in both the public and private sectors; but institutional investors and expatriates who wish to show their appreciation for Government efforts in keeping Nigeria one may buy the bonds on a voluntary basis.

5. CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE

In order to conserve our foreign exchange, and to assist the growth of indigenous industries, the importation of a number of commodities will, henceforth, be either subject to quota or completely banned. By these measures, it is expected that, in a full year, savings in foreign exchange to the tune of more than £6 million win be effected. The details of the commodities involved in this exercise and the manner of their treatment, will also be published later tonight.

In this connection, I would like to warn that the list of commodities liable to this kind of treatment is by no means closed. At the moment the Board of Customs and Excise is making an elaborate tariff classification of all imports, in order to enable the Federal Military Government to determine which of them are necessary and essential in the national interest. In future, all unessential items of imports will either be subject to quota or totally banned.

It should be clear from all that I have said that in the midst of the present strife which has been forced upon it, the Federal Military Government looks firmly and confidently into a glorious future. A future in which all the national units in Nigeria will live harmony  and unity with one another; a future in which political equality and social justice will be guaranteed to all. These being the declared and ultimate objectives of the Federal Military Government, the present military operations must be consistently regarded and supported for what they truly are. They have been designed, not for the gratification of hatred for any group of Nigerians; not for the extermination of the Ibos, as has been wickedly suggested in Some: malevolent quarters; indeed, they have been launched for noble and imperishable ends, namely; the federal unity of Nigeria, and the happiness and prosperity of its people.

It follows, therefore, that those who support the Federal Military Government in all its endeavours, including its current search for additional revenue, do the manifest will of God. For, God is the God of unity and progress, not of division and stagnation.

I thank you very much for listening.

Good night.

IF WE ARE UNITED WE SHALL SUCCEED COLLECTIVELY AND SEVERALLY.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s closing address to the fifth session of the Organisation of African Unity in Algiers on Monday,16thSeptember, 1968.

In the name of Nigeria ‘s Head of State and Government, Major-General Yakubu Gowon, and of people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and on behalf of myself and my colleagues on the Nigerian delegation, I extend my very hearty and warm thanks to His Excellency the President of the Revolutionary Council and the Head Of the  Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, Colonel Houari Boumedienne, for the profuse kindness and lavish hospitality which I and my colleagues have enjoyed, since the Ministerial Council of the OAU commenced its meetings here on the fourth of this month. I also want to seize this opportunity to reiterate Nigeria’s great admiration for the gallant and indomitable people of Algeria, for the bravery and selflessness which they demonstrated, throughout the period of their long and historic fight for freedom. The inspiration which their struggles gave to other countries in Africa will never die or abate. Indeed, their epic struggles will, forever, constitute an imperishable episode in the annals of man’s long and arduous march to liberty.

The impressive attendance, especially of the Heads of State and Government, at this OAU Summit, is, at once, a glowing tribute to the great Algerian people, and a measure of the affection which all countries of Africa have for them and their leaders. I also very warmly congratulate President Boumedienne for the supreme success of the Algiers Summit of the Organisation of African Unity.

This Algiers Summit is unique in more ways than one. At this Summit the OAU has handled a number of delicate issues with unsurpassed maturity, constancy, consistency, and complete freedom from pressures foreign to Africa. Between the Kinshasa and Algiers Summits, our Organisation was visibly threatened by the MONSTER OF DIVISION. A monster whose father and mother are, respectively, ENVY AND SUBSERVIENCE TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE, INIMICAL TO AFRICAN INTERESTS.

At this Summit, this monster has been very seriously scorched; but it will be naive to suggest that it has been destroyed. Between now and the next Summit, it will be paramount duty of every Member-State to do all in its power to lay the ghost of this monster, once and for all, in the life of our great Continent.

I say this because, wherever you turn, the urgent and imperative need for African unity and solidarity not only stares you in the face, but also cries very loud for the most devoted attention. Educationally, economically, and technologically, our Continent remains one of the most backward areas of the world.

As hitherto, Africans or peoples of African descent continue to be the butt of all manner of inhuman treatment and degradation. To the whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, Africans are nothing but anthropoid apes, as Hitler once contemptuously termed them. The white settlers in South Africa and Rhodesia have forcibly expropriated our peoples of all the larger and richer portions of their lands, and relegated them to the status of permanent subordination and unmitigated drudgery in the political and economic affairs of their own motherlands.

In the USA, the Negro Americans suffer grave Social disabilities, so much so that there are now clear signs that the recent violent riotings by the Negroes may degenerate into civil war between White and Black Americans. The latent colour prejudice which has always existed in Britain, but which has hitherto been cleverly suppressed, is now bubbling to the surface; and there is a real danger of racial violence directed against dark-skinned peoples domiciled in Britain.

In the pursuit of their naked self-interests, the developed countries of the world continue to exploit and cheat Africa as well as other underdeveloped countries by means of every contrivance and artifice which man’s ingenuity can invent. With the result that the gap between us and them widens with the years: they are getting rapidly richer, and we are getting steadily and relatively poorer.

To cap it all, the great powers of the world have grouped themselves into two mutually antagonistic ideological camps, and seek feverishly and frantically to entice African States into their respective spheres of influence. To this end, aids are proffered to us in kind and in cash. But our prospective donors always make sure that each aid or loan carries with it a host of humiliating strings and conditions which tend materially to help them more than us, and to undermine our strength and vitality for united and concerted action, by ensuring our permanent economic dependence on them.

In the face of all these disabilities, which are by no means inherent in us or incurable, we need, among other things, the impregnable armour of single-minded unity, solidarity, and fraternity among our different countries.

But instead of directing our energies towards this end, what do we find? Whilst many of us are truly dedicated and inflexible in our resolution to terminate apartheid, Ian-Smithism, and Salazaarims in Africa, some of us have embraced Vorsterism with reservation, and are even encouraging the disruption and disintegration of Member-States in flagrant violation of some of the provisions of Articles II and III of the OAU Charter, and in deliberate disregard of some of the resolutions passed by the OAU in pursuance of these provisions.

It would appear that the zeal and vision, which animated the founders of the OAU and dominated their hearts, are beginning to depart from some of us. This is a most dangerous and contagious trend. And we owe it as a duty to Africa and to our respective countries to arrest this deterioration and decay before they spread too far to be contained.

In this connection, I would like to express the warm appreciation and profound gratitude of the Government and people of Nigeria to those thirty-three Member-States who voted yesterday for the resolution on Nigeria. By this action, they have shown their unflinching commitment to the principles of national unity and territorial integrity, without which Africa just cannot survive as a viable political and economic entity.

These thirty-three States have also shown deep understanding of the imperialist intrigues at work against Nigeria, as part of the imperialist over-all strategy of continuing the political domination and economic exploitation of Africa. It is clear to these States that the imperialists and neo-colonialists with their abominable techniques of divide and rule, are striving hard to use the Nigerian crisis as a means of driving a wedge among the Member-States of our Organisation. The serious consequences of this dangerous trend for the future of this Organisation should be a matter for serious reflection, and constant vigilance by Member-States.

There is, therefore, a pressing need for us, from now on, to renew our pledge to observe the provisions of our Charter to the letter, and with absolute fidelity. To this end, we must, at all times, condemn, both in word and action, every form of political, economic, and social oppression and discrimination against Africans or peoples of African descent, both in Africa or in any other part of the world.

We must regard every African State as an indivisible organism or entity. We must all regard every resolution of the OAU as absolutely binding, we must respect and observe it at all times, and we must do everything in our power to give effect to it. We must make it our cardinal policy to support every African government of the day, whatever the ideological or other character of such a government. In other words, the legitimacy or ideological acceptability of every government for the time being, as well as integrity of its existing territory, must be assumed and upheld by all of us, without any quibbling whatsoever. We must denounce Unilateral Declaration of Independence, otherwise known as UDI, with unequivocal vehemence; and must seek to crush such a political monstrosity by force of arms, if necessary both in Rhodesia and in any other part of Africa.

We must do more; we must cherish the principle of non-interference as a sacred article of faith. In this connection, I would like to emphasis that peace in any society will be impossible to maintain, if every family regards it as its business to interfere in the domestic affairs of another family. It is not disputed that, in the name of mutual friendship, one family may give admonition to another family. But, as all of us here will testify from personal experience, even this task is never undertaken without express or dearly implied invitation; and, in any case, it is always approached with extreme caution and circumspection, and with the sole object of promoting and preserving the corporate existence of the other family. Otherwise, the bond of friendship, which subsisted between the two families, would be broken beyond repairs, and bitter hostility would take the place of amity.

It follows from all these remarks that the OAU must continue, as it has done in the past, to denounce secession or rebellion of whatever kind and guise; it must continue to work assiduously for the termination of all forms of oppression, discrimination, and colonialism in any part of Africa; it must continue, without relenting, to foster the unity of every African country, realising that the unity of the whole of Africa is inextricably interwined with the unassailable unity of each of its constituent States, and it must resolutely resist, and strongly discourage its members from succumbing to, the temptation to interfere in the internal affairs of another African State.

These then, in concrete terms, are the irrevocable objectives of the OAU. And it must be borne in mind that any departure from any of these noble objectives would be bound to lead to strife, acrimony, and irreconcilable cleavage among Member-States; and hence to the total ineffectiveness, if not the complete death, of the OAD itself.

It is easy to recognise the advantages of unity, and to discern the dangers of division, in the African context. If we are united, we shall succeed collectively, and severally. If we are divided, we shall, for a certainty, perish individually, in the hands either of our former colonial masters, or of the new imperialists who are now making a desperate search for African spheres of influence.

In unity, We lose nothing but our economic chains; indeed, in unity, we gain many things, including economic independence, and the welfare of our entire peoples. But, in division, we would lose many things, and gain nothing but neo-colonialism, permanent economic bondage, and mutually destructive hostilities among ourselves. Let us, therefore, remain united; and let us do so resolutely, faithfully, and unflinchingly.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity given to me to address this august Assembly.

IF WE ARE RELATED WE SHALL MEET AGAIN

Chief Obafemi Awolowo s response to his toast on leaving General Gowon s Military Government on 30th June, 1971.

I thank the Commander-in-Chief for his very generous remarks.

By these and other similar remarks already made public, the Commander-in-Chief has, quite frankly, launched me on a sustained course of endeavours.

For, however deserved they may be, it is incumbent on me to see to it that, hereafter, I continually strive to justify the encomiums which he has so richly showered upon me.

I want to assure him and my fellow-Commissioners, as well as those loyal and dutiful officials with whom I had worked or come in contact, that the step which I had had to take, in resigning my two posts in this Government, has not been an easy one.

My decision to go was easy to take: it was strictly a matter of principle, and dependent on the happening of an event – the end of the civil war.

But to implement the decision when the happy event on which it was dependent had occurred became a difficult matter.

The reason for this is simple.

Apart from the opportunity for serving our people in a ministerial capacity which would be missed, I had so much enjoyed working with General Gowon, and with my other colleagues, that the pull to stay became more powerful than I had thought possible.

The pain of parting is, however, considerably assuaged by the memories of an exciting and happy association with all of you over the past four years.

We had together served Nigeria, to the best of our respective ability, in her hour of dire peril; and we had, by the Grace of God, triumphed.

For the opportunity which we had all had to serve Nigeria in that momentous and crucial period in her history, we are all indebted to God and to General Gowon.

Speaking of General Gowon, I am sure we will all agree that as a soldier and Supreme Head of a military administration, he is unquestionably in a class by himself.

He is an exceedingly good-natured person.

He is accommodating and understanding; patient almost to a fault; naturally fair-minded, and discerning.

He is an embodiment of tolerance, always conceding to others the rights which he claims for himself.

In his dedication to the cause of Nigerian unity, he has been unanimously accorded a safe place among frontline Nigerian nationalists. But it is his wisdom in correcting the structural imbalance of our great Federation that sets him apart from and far above all Nigerian rules before him.

It is perhaps superfluous to say of a soldier that he is courageous. But those of us who worked closely with him during the darkest days of the civil war cannot fail to testify to the indomitable spirit, calm, and exceeding resourcefulness of General Gowon in the midst of dangers.

Time does not permit me to pay individual tribute to my colleagues, and to all the officials with whom I had had dealings.

Suffice it for me to say, in all sincerity, that in all my career as a public man, I have never worked with any group which is more totally committed to the cause of one, united, prosperous, and happy Nigeria, than the Hon. Commissioners and top officials of this Federal Government.

Since the attainment of independence in 1960, we have travelled very far indeed.

In the course of our eventful journey, we have scaled dizzy frightening heights, and leaped across yawning gulfs, which threatened to impede our march and swallow us.

We have arrived at the present pass severely battered and bruised, but erect and unbeaten.

In terms of events – both certain, contingent, and unexpected – the journey between now and 1976 will not be less difficult or exacting.

Be it so.

We had been fortified and sustained in the past by God’s providence, by Nigeria’s inherent and self-generating bounteousness, and by the native good sense and forbearance of our trusting people.

These are unique advantages on which we can always count; and with them, we can approach the future with hope, confidence, and faith.

In venturing forth into the immediate future, however, there are a few things which we must observe with the utmost seriousness and realism.

I would like to touch briefly on only two of them.

ONE: The greatest achievement of the present Federal Military Government is the creation of more States in Nigeria. Everything, therefore, must be done to make every State a viable, virile, and successful entity, enjoying complete autonomy within the spheres assigned to it by the Constitution. Because of the formidable financial and political position of the Federal Government, vis-a-vis the increasing consciousness of their rights, powers, and obligations on the part of the States, the temptation to want to bring the states under, to erode their residual and concurrent powers, and overshadow their influence, can be very strong. But, in the name of harmoniously united Nigeria, it must be resisted. The Federal Government is strong enough already. The States must also be made strong. For, the strength of Nigeria’s federal chain consists no more and no less in that of each of the State links.

TWO: By a flash of divine afflatus, and an act of unselfish and enlightened nationalism, General Gowon corrected the structural imbalances of our dear federation. But other dangerous imbalances remain. The Second National Development Plan has been rightly described as bold and far-reaching, – that is as compared with its “immediate and remote predecessors. But having regard to the gargantuan nature of Nigeria’s pressing and urgent problems, and the rapid rate of our population growth, we are likely to find in 1974 that, among others, our inter-State and inter-personal economic and educational imbalances largely remain, to harass and torment us. We would do well to bear this point in mind, during the periodic reviews of the Plan.

I must not take any more of your time – or, indeed, of mine! It is now about 4 p.m., and we are expected back here at 6 p.m.

But before closing, I have it in command from my wife, and I Also consider it my bounden duty, to seize this opportunity to express the deep gratitude of my wife, myself, and my entire family to Mrs. Victoria Gowon for her kindness and generosity to my family and myself.

‘The hands that rock the cradle’, so goes the wise saying ‘rule the empire.’ If it is not presumptuous to do so, I would like to add that the hands that tend a ruler in true affection, in large measure, rule the nation. If this is so, then the contributions of Victoria to the progress of this country thus far stand in bold and historic relief.

It is because he has a happy home base, provided by Victoria, that General Gowon is able to tackle the onerous problems confronting our beloved fatherland with such obvious enthusiasm and devotion.

‘If we are related’, says Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘we shall meet.’ ‘Very well then”, I believe we are related – and so we shall continue to meet – again and again.

Those who genuinely and sedulously seek to advance the prosperity, welfare, and happiness of the entire people of this Federation, without any discrimination whatsoever, cannot but be related.

And so, though after midnight, I am no longer a member of your Government, yet we shall remain together, in an indissoluble partnership, in the pursuit of the common good of our people.

AFRICA MUST BE ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT AND SELF-RELIANT

Address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo to the 4th Summit meeting of the Organisation of African Unity in Kinshasa on 12th September. 1967.

Mr. Chairman, Your Imperial Majesty, Eminent Heads of State and Government, Brothers,

After four years of existence, it would appear that the need for serious stocktaking within the Organisation of African Unity is imperative. Such an exercise would help us to appraise our achievements thus far. It would help us to place the emphasis where it properly belongs. It would give us a clear sense of priority and direction; and we would thereby avoid a tendency to drift, or to being bogged down with unessentials.

Of all the purposes in Article II of our Charter, only two are vital to the honour, progress, and unity of all the peoples of Africa. They are:

1. i) the eradication of all forms of colonialism from Africa, and
2. ii) intensification of economic co-operation, designed to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa.

Since the declaration of these objectives among others, Angola and Mozambique remain firmly under Portuguese rule: Ian Smith and Apartheid continue to flourish; Fernando Po remains a camp where Africans are made to slave labour; South Africa holds firmly to South-West Africa; and the Specialised Commissions set up by this Organisation to formulate proposals for harnessing the natural and human resources of our Continent for the total advancement, welfare and well-being of all our peoples’ have failed to meet, on more than two occasions, for LACK OF QUORUM.

The point must be constantly borne in mind that, with Ian Smith and Vorster, we are running a race in which, in the short run, Time is not on the side of this organisation.

In the long run, all human problems do settle themselves aright, whatever anyone or group of people may do. This is so, because all those who do wrong and injustice, whether they acknowledge or are aware of their wrongdoing and injustice or not, are merely setting themselves against the powerful tide of Nature’s or, if you like, History’s dialectical progression. Temporarily, this tide can be held back; but certainly, not permanently. In the fullness of time, the accumulated water bursts the dams and all the obstacles which hold it in check, and cause devastation in all the adjoining areas, before it proceeds majestically’ and irresistibly along its chosen course.

All that this Organisation set itself out to do four years ago, therefore, and all that it can do in any case and at any time, is, in the short run, to hasten Africa’s dialectical progression to total ‘freedom, equality, justice and dignity’, by removing from its path all the frictions and obstacles which Portugal, South Africa, Ian Smith, and others of that ilk, symbolise and constitute. We have, no doubt, been making some efforts, these past four years, to rid Africa of all vestiges of colonialism and neocolonialism, and of brutal discrimination against our race. But, unfortunately, we have not been seen by our peoples or by the world at large to be making any worthwhile effort at all, simply because we have not been able to make any disconcerting and decisive impact on those concerned. The reason for this, of course, is obvious. All the independent countries of Africalack, in sufficient quantity and quality, the requisite sinews for making such an impact.

This brings me to the second aspect of our declared objectives to which I have previously referred, namely: economic co-operation by all the countries of Africa.

Today, Africa is a Continent of COMPETING BEGGAR-NATIONS. We vie with one another for favours from our former colonial masters; and we deliberately fall over one another to invite neocolonialists to come to our different territories to preside over Our economic fortunes.

As long as we permit ourselves to play this role, with so much apparent relish and enthusiasm, as we have so far been doing, so long will poverty, ignorance, and disease, with their concomitant phenomena, such as colonialism and neo-colonialism, prevail in Africa.

We may continue and indeed we will be right to continue, to use the power and influence which sovereignty confers, as well as the tactics and manoeuvres which international diplomacy legitimatises, to extract more and more alms from our benefactors. But the inherent evil remains – and it remains with us and with no one else: unless a beggar resolutely shakes off, and irrevocably turns his back on, his begging habit, he will for ever remain a beggar. For, the more he begs the more he develops the beggar characteristics of lack of initiative, courage, drive and self-reliance.

It follows from all that I have said that the economic union of Africa is of the utmost importance and urgency.

The sort of Union which I have in mind is one under the auspices of which Africa must be economically independent and self-reliant. Unless we take definite and detailed steps to accomplish this kind of union NOW, our next immediate state, economically and politically, would be much worse – though because of many disguises this may not appear to be so; our next immediate state, economically and politically, would be much worse than it was in the years before we attained to independence and sovereignty.

In our pre-independence days we were the unrelieved hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our present state should not be looked upon as any better simply because, by virtue of our independent political status, we are elevated to the position of attractively-garbed tools bearers in a giant and ever-growing world economy exclusively controlled and manipulated by countries other than African.

In absolute terms, we are led to believe that we are making rapid economic progress. In recognition of this ostensible progress, we are no longer referred to as underdeveloped: we are now politely regarded as a developing Continent. But in relative terms, we are only a wee better than we were in our colonial days.

Before us, right under our very nose, Western Europe is integrating itself fast into one indivisible giant economy. The USSR and the USA are, each of them, a huge and closely-knit economic entity.

Between them, the countries of Western Europe and the USA .have undisputed control over international trade and finance. Between them, they dictate or decisively influence the terms and directions of international trade; and, at their will and pleasure, determine the state of international liquidity as well. Specifically, they dictate to us what we should produce, and sell to them, and at what prices; and in return, they sell to us what they think is good for LIS on their own terms. We have little or no choice in all these transactions.

In the face of all these economic integrations among the developed countries of the world, and the inevitable strengthening of their economic dominance, we in Africa cannot afford to continue to shirk our most urgent task. We cannot afford to continue to remain as small, impotent, and defenceless economic units that we now are.

The great significance of sovereignty is that it gives us the golden chance of ordering our lives and affairs the way we like, politically as well as economically. In the days of our political bondage, the problem of economic prosperity was not susceptible to satisfactory solution. Down the ages, the greatest affliction of Africa is poverty, together with ignorance and disease. Since independence, we have it in our power to put an end to this endemic affliction. But, alas! by-and-large, we have thus far done very little, and in any case nothing spectacular, about this baneful affliction.

It is high time we did something about it and swiftly too.

There must be an African declaration of normative social and economic objectives which all African States must be enjoined to pursue, individually, and as an actively cooperating aggregation.

The emergence of regional economic groupings in Africa is a healthy and commendable evolution. But these groupings should be regarded as no more and no less than steps in the right direction. For one thing, in scale and potentials, they are incapable of meeting the challenge of the gargantuan economic groupings which are now taking place in Europe and the Americas. For another there is the danger that these regional African groupings might engage in destructive competition among themselves, unless their activities are coordinated and canalised at an Africa-wide level.

Furthermore, it is generally known and acknowledged that international organisations, like the ECA, have done a tremendous amount of work in studying the economic and social problems of Africa, and in formulating solutions for them. It is also widely known that African States have participated actively in the work of these international organisations, and have derived some benefits – even if yet intangible – from their activities, for which I am sure, we are deeply grateful. But we must be prepared to admit that these international organisations are far from being adequate for our purposes, and from being compatible with our much-desired economic self-dctermination and independence. Our attitude to these international organisations then should be quite clearly this, and I believe that this represents the present thinking among African leaders and peoples: instead of regarding them as the Alpha and Omega of our economic salvation, we should establish our own permanent and Africa-wide institutional bodies which will be under our absolute control, and to which these international organisations as well as our regional organisations will be ancillary and supplementary.

The preambles to the Charter of this Organisation speak eloquently of the harnessing of the natural and human resources of our Continent, for the total advancement of our peoples in all spheres of human endavour’, and of uniting all the African States to the end that the welfare and well-being of all our peoples can be assured. As a general declaration of aims, these preambles are unexceptionable and admirable. But they lack the detailed concreteness and specificity of the economic objectives which bind the Common Market countries together. These detailed, concrete and specific objectives must now be worked out and declared, and definite steps taken to implement them without any delay.

I therefore most respectfully invite this Assembly to reaffirm its faith in this proposal, and aver the dedication of this Organisation to its early implementation.

Freedom, equality, justice and dignity for our people impel us to this course of action. The economic independence, progress and self-respect of our Continent demand it. And the welfare and happiness of our struggling and trusting peoples compulsively enjoin it upon those of us on whose shoulders the mantle of African leadership now rests.

WE CANNOT SECURE PEACE WITHOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL HARMONY

An Address entitled ‘The Role of the Working Class in Post-War Nigeria ‘which was delivered to the Third Revolutionary Convention of the Nigerian Trade Union Congress on Sunday, 1st March, 1970.

I thank the officers and members of the Nigerian Trade Union Congress for giving me the opportunity to address this closing session of its Third Revolutionary Convention.

From its programme, as well as from the accounts of its meetings, there is no doubt that the Convention has had five crowded days of hard work. During this period, it has been addressed by eminent public men, economists, and trade unionists; and has discussed matters of the moment like education, nationalisation, full employment, workers’ participation in economic planning, proposals for agrarian reform, and the role of the working class in post-war Nigeria.

At this closing stage, there is really no subject of relevance and interest to this Convention which has not been thoroughly dealt with by a previous speaker. The temptation is, therefore, very great for one to want to run swiftly through the entire gamut of the grounds already covered by previous speakers, in order to avoid the charge of undue and unnecessary repetition which might arise from dwelling at length on a subject already fully treated by an expert. Nonetheless, I am confining myself in this address to “The Role of the Working Class in Post-War Nigeria’, in the belief that what I have to say on the subject would be a useful addition to Mr. Ogunola’s contribution.

At the very outset, let us get the perspective of this topic straight. The role of the working class in post-war Nigeria will essentially depend on two things: (1) what roles are there to be played; and (2) the fitness of the working class to play all or any of such roles. We wilt consider these two issues in turn.

By general agreement, the major and urgent tasks ahead of us in Nigeria are now well identified. There are six of them, namely: winning the peace; relief; rehabilitation; reconciliation; reconstruction; and development. Briefly, let us see what they mean in practical terms.

Peace is a positive state of quiet, tranquility, and social harmony. Negatively, it means the absence not only of war, but also of large-scale violence and rioting, as well as of extensive and ever-recurrent industrial strife, and suchlike social unrest.

In this sense, it is clear that we cannot be said to have won the peace when hostilities ceased. Indeed, we can only be said to have secured peace (including industrial peace) when social justice, which is the only fountain of social harmony, reigns supreme in our land.

The immediate relief of the sick and the starving and the rehabilitation of those whose homes and families had been shattered and scattered, or who had been uprooted from their normal places of residence or displaced from their regular occupations, are transient but indispensable steps in the process of reconciliation.

Relief is scheduled by the Federal Military Government to be completed by the end of March next. But rehabilitation is to take a little longer.

War is an infernal and satanic business. Civil war is the worst form of all wars and quarrels. When, therefore, brothers and sisters, friends and relations, and comrades-in-arm in the national and independence struggles, fiercely ranged themselves against one another in the deadly and bloody combat of war, as Nigerians did of late, the cause or causes of the fratricidal quarrel must be looked

for beyond the mad ambition of one megalomaniac. That is to say, that whilst reconciliation must, in the circumstances, necessarily begin with the removal of Ojukwu from the scene, it would be disastrous to think that the work of reconciliation is ipso facto completed by the mere act of such removal. It must be realised that the causes of the last civil war are much deeper than Ojukwu’s reckless intransigence. It appears to me that they lie embedded in the nether realms of such degrading and depraving evils as unemployment; mass ignorance; endemic and debilitating diseases; low productivity; abuse and misuse of power, bribery and corruption; favouritism and nepotism; ethnocentricity and tribalism; ‘much poverty’ and ‘much discontent’.

In this connection, it will be refreshing to recall Bacon’s authoritative and imperishable words. Says he: ‘Rebellions are caused by two things: much poverty, much discontent’. We are all witnesses to the fact that both of them cancerous social maladies and many more were very much present with us in pre-war Nigeria, and threaten to continue in style now and in the future.

Reconstruction and development can be said to mean one and the same thing. They are no more and no less than circumstantial aspects of identical operations. For instance, when we begin to rebuild the damaged bridge at Onitsha, or to construct a new one at Jebba, we would, at the time of the operations, be engaged in each case in the work of adding to the wealth of the nation. The only difference would be that, in the one case, we would only be trying to restore, with such necessary improvement as may be dictated by prevailing ideas, what had been destroyed, whilst in the other, we would be putting in what had not been there before.

Furthermore, there is a political necessity for treating reconstruction and development as mere aspects of identical operations. Just as there is urgent need to reconstruct the, roads, bridges, etc., damaged in the areas of direct conflict, so there is crying need to reconstruct old roads, bridges, etc., and build new ones, in other parts of the country not directly affected by actual fighting. The Federal Military Government recognises these important needs; and accordingly, the country’s next periodic development plan is going to embrace both so-called post-war reconstruction and development.

‘Man does not live by bread alone.’ Consequently, apart from post-war material development, there is also a great and urgent need to reconstruct and develop the minds of Nigerians on both sides of the fighting line by moral, religious, and civil instructions. Since wars, quarrels, machinations, and all other evils are conceived, and begin in the minds of men, it is there that we must seek to eradicate them, or nip them in the bud.

Fortunately, the task of reaching and cleansing this intangible Part of man. called mind, is not as difficult as it may, at first sight, seem. If you want to influence a man s mind either for good or ill, the first and the most effective line of approach is to condition his  Physical frame as well as his material prospects for the purpose in hand, As we have just noted, man indeed does not live by bread alone. But it is equally true that he cannot live at all without bread. And it can be demonstrated that, in the m.iin, what goes on in his mind, and his receptivity or resistance to suggestions, instructions, and propaganda, depend on the quantum of bread at his disposal, at any given time, relative to his basic needs, interests, and aspirations, compounded by those of the ethnic, tribal, professional, business, or social group to which he belongs.

In other words, the susceptibility or otherwise of a man’s mind to rebellion, anarchy, crime, and other evil influences; or to loyalty, orderliness, honesty, and other good influences, depends on the quantum of food, shelter, clothing, and other comforts of this world available to him, relative to his basic needs, interests, and aspirations, etc.

It follows then that in order to reach and influence a man’s mind for good, and do so effectively, the first thing to do is to provide him with adequate bread – that is, food, shelter, clothing, and other earthly comforts, sufficient in quantity and quality for human needs.

The post-war roles which I have outlined can now be briefly summarised as follows:

1)            The attainment and permanent maintenance of interpersonal economic justice, equity, and fairplay, plus equality for all before the law (PEACE);

2)            The immediate care of those afflicted by the war with sickness, hunger, and destitution (RELIEF);

3)            The restoration of the displaced to their homes and, as far as possible, to their occupations (REHABILITATION);

4)            The removal of those causes which tend to generate economic injustice, constitutional deprivation, and legal violence (RECONCILIATION); and

5)            The increase in national wealth with a view to raising the standard of living of the entire masses of our people without exception or discrimination (RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT)

These, in my view, are the roles which must be fulfilled in post-war Nigeria. And it can be seen that whilst each of them has political and ethnical undertone and implications, they are basically economic in nature and character.

Now that we have a clear idea of what, from my point of view, need to be done in post-war Nigeria, the next question is: which part can and/or must the working class play? Before I attempt an answer to this question, I would like us to agree as to what is meant by ‘the working class’.

The term ‘working class’ can be said to be a politico-economic expression, pure and simple. It is not strictly an economic expression, pure and simple. It is not strictly an economic terminology. In a capitalist economy, it denotes, from among the suppliers of labour, a class of people who are treated as inferior, and depressed. It means the proletariat as contrasted with the bourgeoisie. In a socialist economy, it denotes the entire class of people who supply, the two factors of labour and organisation. It is in the former – the capitalist – sense that I am using the term. For it is only in this sense that it can have any meaning at all in the Nigerian setting.

In Nigeria then, the working class can be identified as the peasants; the farm, factory, manual, and other labourers; the domestic servants; the junior clerical staff wherever they may be employed; the factory workers and machine minders; the drivers of road and rail vehicles; the petty traders; etc. You can easily know them by their labour and drudgery; by the degrading, cheerless, and unenviable existence they struggle to eke out; and by the colossal gap which exists between them and the more fortunate members of Our society. They constitute 98 per cent of our entire labour force.

They are the straws from which all the bricks of our society are made. They produce our food and raw materials; they manufacture all the good things that modern living demands; they provide utility of place and make the mobility of resources possible; they supervise our borders, fight our wars, and help to maintain public order.

They are the stuff of which revolutions, rebellions, public disorder and unrest, peace, reconciliation, reconstruction, and development are made, They are by nature law-abiding, inarticulate, obedient, and submissive. Relative to their rulers and leaders, they are like wet clay in the hands of a potter. Down the ages, they have been the victims of tyranny, oppression, fraud, and ‘degradation, and the main beneficiaries of just rule and humane economic policies. They are capable of reacting, though slowly, with violence and mercilessness to misrule and misleadership, and of responding, swiftly and with gratitude and grace, to just rule and altruistic leadership.

In view of all these, can anyone really point to, or imagine anything that was, is, or can be accomplished without the working class? I make bold to answer that, without the working class, nothing was, is, or can be accomplished.

It follows from this reasoning, therefore, that the role of the working class in all of Nigeria’s post-war endeavours is supreme and decisive – for better, for worse. In other words, the success or failure of our post-war aspirations and efforts would depend not only on the skill and wisdom of our planners, administrators, and chief executives, but also on the fitness of the working class to play effectively their allotted and indispensable parts. To make the working class fit for their role, therefore, especially in the more permanent spheres of peace, reconciliation, and development, it is imperative:

1)            that the capacity of every member of this class to produce should be considerably enlarged to the very utmost of which his natural talents, if fully developed and given scope, are capable;

2)            that he should be better fed, better housed, better clad, and better provided with some of the comforts of life;

3)            that his mental, psychological, and physical potentialities should be so developed and equipped, and the economic and political affairs of the country should be so planned and organised, as to enable him to acquire and enjoy many of the good things of this world;

4)            that all such sources of inequality of income as are not warranted by corresponding personal contributions to the national wealth should be controlled immediately, with a view to eradicating them;

5)            that the rulers and leaders of the country should not only be dedicated, patriotic, honest, and just, but should be seen to be so by the working class; and

6)            that, to these ends, every member of the class should (a) be gainfully employed; (b) be assured of a minimum wage compatible with decent and respectable living; (c) be guaranteed unfettered and equal access to education, health, work, human dignity, and impartial justice; (d) be free to go to the polls, at not too long intervals, to choose those who will govern him; (e) be properly guided and instructed as to his moral, civic, and economic responsibilities to society; and (t) be given by his rulers and leaders an unfailing display of the attributes of discipline, devotion, probity, impartiality, justice, fairplay, and utter respect for the sovereignty of the people.

It will be seen that the role of the working class in post-war Nigeria will depend on the extent to which they are permitted and equipped by the rulers and leaders of the Federation to play any role at all, and on the willingness of the working class to play any allotted role. I must state, categorically here, that I am taking, as given, the willingness and the ever-readiness of the Nigerian working class to play, at all times, their inherent all-embracing and all-pervasive role in the affairs of man and of Nigeria.

In doing this, I am not unmindful of the oft-repeated complaint that, even when afforded the opportunity, the Nigerian working class have not always given of their best. This is a charge which, over the years, I have found, both from personal experience and observation, to be completely misconceived.

I have no doubt at all in my mind that the Nigerian working class, like their counterparts in the advanced countries of the world, will always give of their very best, if the following minimum conditions coexist:

1)            Security of continued employment;

2)            Enlightened wage-policy;

3)            Congenial conditions of work;

4)            Good health as well as good general or technical education for the individual worker;

5)            Efficient supervision;

6)            Abolition of fringe benefits and other privileges;

7)            Exemplary industry, and devotion to duty on the part of the rulers and leaders, the administrators, managers, and high executives, and

8)            Appropriate and severe sanctions for deliberate acts of negligence, and slowing down of output. Let us all, therefore, acknowledge and have faith in the willingness and readiness of the working class to play their all-embracing, all-pervasive, supreme, and, in the long run, decisive role in post-war Nigeria. At the same time, let all of us – rulers and leaders of thought alike – unite to do all in our power to make them fit as can be to play their role to the best of their ability, and with the utmost efficiency.

Above all, in all these things, let all the trade union officials and other working class leaders strive continuously to give to their trusting followers, at all times and in all circumstances, enlightened, constructive, and responsible leadership.

REVENUE ALLOCATION MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF EVEN PROGRESS AND NEED

Speech delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo as Federal Commissioner for Finance to the Conference of Finance Commissioners of the Federation in Kano on 23rd February, 1970

On behalf of all the members of this Conference, and the officials in attendance, I wholeheartedly thank the Government of Kano State for playing host to us, and for its hospitality. I have no doubt that we will all continue to enjoy our stay here.

May I seize this opportunity to congratulate all of you personally for the successful and satisfactory conclusion of the civil war. The measure of the economic strength and resilience of our country is that it was able to cope with two major problems at the same time: armed rebellion, and the teething troubles of nine infant States. If we could succeed so well under the trying circumstances of the war, there is every reason for confidence that we will succeed in the future in building a new and prosperous Nigeria, where mass ignorance, preventable diseases, and poverty will be no more.

The agenda before us is short and non-controversial. But one perennial subject, which is likely to influence the minds of many delegates in their approach to the specific matters before us, is allocation of revenue among the Governments of the Federation.

Ever since the creation of Regional Assemblies in 1947, the country has been in continual but unsuccessful search for a generally acceptable and satisfactory formula for revenue allocation. Inside eighteen years, we had five full-scale Revenue Allocation Commissions. And we have, for some time now, been looking forward to yet another.

Our failure, in the past, to evolve a generally acceptable and permanent formula for revenue allocation, has been blamed on all sorts of causes which, I dare say, are completely mistaken. The reason for our failure, in my humble opinion, is that we have never set before ourselves agreed national objectives which all of us should pursue simultaneously, and to which alone any formula for revenue allocation must be geared in order to assure for it general acceptance and a fair degree of permanency. As long as each State has its own pet and distinct objectives, which it is intent on pursuing, so long it will be difficult and well-nigh impossible for us to fashion a revenue allocation formula to which: all of us could subscribe as satisfactory.

Before we embark, therefore, on the next exercise in revenue allocation, it is essential that we should, first of all, thoroughly search for, discover, and declare for ourselves, basic national objectives which, if pursued in concert and progressively attained, would bring prosperity and advancement to all parts of Nigeria without exemption or discrimination, and keep our diverse peoples harmoniously united.

There are naturally many economic, political, and social objectives which Nigeria must pursue in order to justify its existence as a State. Some of these can be identified as basic and fundamental, and are so relevant to the subject of revenue allocation that, if faithfully pursued, will decidedly satisfy the principles of Even Progress and Need which, over the years, we have been hankering after, and trying hard, with indifferent success or unsuccess, to quantify and materialise. It occurs to me that there are seven such objectives, which I will now state, and briefly comment upon.

THE FIRST IS FULL EMPLOYMENT. It is well known that, in the matter of exploitation, we have, so far, done no more than touch the fringe of our natural resources. They are still largely undiscovered, and inefficiently utilised. Our capacity for phenomenal economic growth is tremendous and truly colossal. To plan for less than full employment, therefore, is an admission on the part of Nigerian leaders that they are unequal to their admittedly difficult, but at the same time inspiring and manageable assignment. Besides, whenever we talk of merely reducing, and not stamping out unemployment, the questions which I always ask myself are: Who are the unfortunate victims we are planning to keep perforce on the unemployment market? And is it really just and fair that some of our fellow-citizens should be left out in the cold to starve in the midst of plenty, and to suffer poverty, destitution, and degradation which are the inevitable concomitants of unemployment? In this connection, it is well to bear in mind that inadequate opportunity for employment among individual Nigerians will also mean inadequate and unequal opportunity for most States to cater for the economic welfare of those under their respective jurisdiction. And I believe that we now know from experience that it is inadequacy and inequality in employment opportunity which, more than anything else, breeds inter-personal, inter-State, inter-ethnic, and inter-tribal envy and bitterness.

There are only two problems that I can see concerning full employment in every State, and throughout the Federation. They are the problems of planning, and of executive capacity. Both can and must be overcome, if we are to generate a sense of economic security among our people in their entirety.

THE SECOND AND THIRD ARE FREE EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS AND FREE HEALTH SERVICES FOR ALL. So far as is known, man is the only dynamic and purposive agent on our planet. All other things – the lower animals, vegetations, and minerals – are static by nature, and purposeless without man. In all economic activities, man is everything – the supplier and demander, producer and consumer; initiator, innovator, motivator, accelerator, multiplier, and distributor, the be-all and end-all; the Alpha and Omega. The more educated and healthier he is, the more productive he becomes as an economic agent, and the more useful and effective he is as a member of society. If all these propositions are true, it follows that the education and health of every Nigerian citizens are indispensable to our rapid economic progress, political stability, and social harmony.

It is my advocacy, therefore, that we should embark on these schemes in every State without further delay. If we do, I am convinced that in a matter of fifteen years from now illiteracy and mass ignorance, as well as preventible diseases, would have become a thing of the past; and in twenty years from now, the present yawning , dangerous, and explosive educational gap between one part of the country and another would have been totally closed, putting all ethnic groups in Nigeria on equal footing with one another in educational and intellectual attainments. I would like to remark, however, that if education and health are not free at all levels, it will be difficult to devise a generally accepted formula for allocating revenue for these vital purposes, and to ensure equal progress among the States in education and health. In this event, the inequality which we want to eradicate, and the gap which we are anxious to close, will remain, and continue to poison inter-State and inter-ethnic relations.

A good deal of detailed calculations have been done by some experts on the financial effects of these schemes. It will, for instance, cost £8,000 to provide a health centre for a population of 10,000, and £4,000 per annum to run it. With the health facilities provided at this centre, preventable diseases will be wiped out and kept out, infant mortality will be reduced to the barest minimum, and the health of the people will be considerably enhanced. The only obstacle here, it will be seen, is not money but the lack of qualified personnel. We must train them, and begin to do so now.

It is also estimated that, on the very outside, the total recurrent cost of free education, over the next five years, will be £405m., whilst capital costs will be of the order of £150m. As against the recurrent cost, the anticipated combined recurrent revenue of the Federal and State Governments, on a conservative basis, is about £1,931m. The estimated recurrent cost of education thus forms 21 per cent of the estimated total recurrent revenue. As regards the estimated capital cost, I have no doubt at all in my mind that we can quite conveniently carry £150m, in our stride in the next periodic plan. I hasten to concede, before the point is raised, that the cost of education will certainly accelerate in the succeeding years. But so (if not much more so) will our GDP.

THE FOURTH IS MODERNISATION OF AGRICULTURE. In his contribution to the discussion on the Paper entitled AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT submitted by Professor H.A. Oluwasanmi to THE CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA which was held at Ibadan University in March, 1969, Professor Glenn Johnson said:

‘By 1985 GDP from properly managed agriculture would probably make up about one-third of the total as contrasted to 55 per cent in 1966. Conservatively, that one-third, however, would be over twice as large as in 1966’.

In other words, by 1985, if properly planned and managed, agriculture should be able to contribute as much as £ 1,784m, to our GDP; that is, £179.4m, more than our total GDP in 1966. If a foreigner says that this target is possible, we would be doing ourselves much worse than injustice to say that it is not. Speaking for myself, I believe very much that more than this target is possible. Indeed, a private projection with which I am associated puts our GDP by 1985 at £5,618.4m., as compared with £5,353.4m, based on Professor Johnson’s projection. If it is assumed that one-third of the former figure is contributed by agriculture, this would result in £1,872.8m; that is, £88.4m’, more than Professor Johnson’s projection. But to achieve any of these ambitious targets, Nigeria’s agriculture must be modernised and mechanised in a bold and massive manner. We shall need to invest heavily in tractors, mechanical ploughs and ridgers, fertilisers, pest control, irrigation, research into high-yielding grains and seeds, cattle pastures and ranches, fishing trawlers, etc. It is only in the pursuit and attainment of these targets that our oft-repeated desire to increase the productivity, and so raise the standard of living, of our peasantry, evenly throughout the Federation, can be realised. So far as the evidence reveals, however, none of the States, by itself, can afford anything near the scale of investment required to realise our legitimate desire. And the problem is extremely urgent for all the States and for the country, without exception.

It may not, for instance, be generally recognised that just now the level of poverty amongst our peasants throughout the country is almost equally high, in spite of the false and imposing facades presented by the town and city dwellers in some States. The average per capita weekly expenditure on food in our rural areas is 4/- for the West, 3/4d for the East, and 3/5d for the North. Any arrangement, therefore, whereby all the States can equally, rapidly, and in concert develop their agriculture should be preferred to the present haphazard and unco-ordinated individual efforts.

THE FIFTH IS RAPID INDUSTRIALISATION OF EACH STATE. The important point to stress here is that if agriculture is properly developed in every State, agro-allied industries will automatically emerge, and a number of manufacturing industries would follow in their wake. In such circumstance, each State would stand to benefit, and the present trend of uneven location of industries would disappear.

Before I leave this topic, there is a popular illusion about industrialisation which I would like us to recognise with a view to discarding it. Any time public discussion turns on the question of reducing or abolishing unemployment, there is a common tendency among all of us to regard industrialisation as the most effective (if not the only) means of achieving the desirable goal. But the reality of the situation is that, whilst industries, if properly planned, could only provide employment for a total of about 220,000 workers within the next twelve years or so, a properly planned agriculture can, by contrast, provide equally remunerative employment for at least 6,000,000 workers within the next five years. It is well to realise, before it is too late, that, for the next thirty years, manufacturing industries cannot cater for as many people as agriculture can, within the same period. It follows then that, if it is the ardent and burning desire of those of us now in the vanguard of public life in Nigeria to serve our age and, at least, the next generation, faithfully and fruitfully, our area of concentration, as between manufacturing and agriculture, must ipso facto be agriculture.

THE SIXTH IS RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF OUR SYSTEMS OF TRANSPORTATION. On the basis of the old Regions, there is one mile of road to less than two square miles of territory in the East, one mile to about three square miles in the West and Mid-West, and one mile to about 13 square miles in the North. Furthermore, the riverine areas of the East, West, Mid-West and Lagos have up till now, received little or no attention at all in the matter of waterway development. The areas of heavy concentration in road and waterway development, from now on, are, therefore, clear beyond dispute. But only a nationally orientated revenue allocation system can correct the existing glaring imbalance in the regional development of our transportation systems.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I would like to stress that whilst the Northern and riverine areas of the country, for economic and social reasons which we do not need to go into here, lag very much behind in transportation development, and should therefore be given special attention henceforth, the crucial point must not be overlooked that the areas of convergence for most of our transportation activities in the country are those adjacent to the ports at Port Harcourt, Calabar, Sapele, Warri, Escravos, Lagos, and Apapa. It follows from this fact that the development of those roads, within the areas of the Mid-Western, Eastern, Western, and Lagos regions, which give access to the ports, is of common concern to all the States in the Federation. For, any transportation deficiency in these areas is bound to constitute time-wasting, labour-wasting, and capital-wasting bottlenecks of the worst order.

THE SEVENTH IS PUTTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ENABLE IT NOT ONLY TO PERFORM ITS ALLOTTED FUNCTIONS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, BUT ALSO TO COME READILY TO THE AID OF ANY STATE IN NEED. There is need for all the Governments of the Federation to agree to pursue the six preceding objectives, and to make detailed and scientific plan for their implementation. Granting that this is done, it is believed that, unlike now, each State would be in a position to perform its functions effectively, and justify its existence to the people under its jurisdiction, without undue anxiety.

But if perchance, any State fell on an evil day, it should be the duty of the Federal Government, acting as the accredited agent of all the other States, to come to the aid of such a needy State, without delay. To this end, the Federal Government should be provided with enough funds. It will not be easy in the beginning to estimate how much this will be. But as time goes on, experience will guide us. It was the good fortune of those of us here gathered to keep the coffers and manage the finances of our great country, during the darkest and most trying period of its history. It may still being calculated – in thirty months of civil war, without in formulating the principles which will, in future, guide allocation of revenue among the Governments of the Federation. In any case, it is the duty of every citizen of this country, who has any worthwhile opinion to offer on this vital but knotty problem, to do so with the sole desire of creating a new Nigeria which will be worthy of the sacrifices which its loyal citizens had made of late, and which will incline all erring citizens to repent their past misdoings, as well as refrain from falling into the same error in the future. It is for all these reasons that I have deliberately chosen this opportunity, which may well be the last we have before the next exercise in revenue allocation begins, to stimulate your thoughts on this very important issue.

The objectives which I have outlined to you are very lofty. For Nigeria, they have to be. An underdeveloped nation which could afford to spend well over £300m – the figures are still being calculated – in thirty months of civil war, without borrowing a penny from abroad, without buying a single item of military equipment on credit from anyone, without receiving a gift of any kind from abroad, and without being economically weakened and prostrate in the process, can do practically anything if it makes up its mind to do it, and plan well for it accordingly.

Now, I take it that it is common knowledge that, in the long run, the ravages of ignorance, superstition, disease, squalor, and poverty which daily and everywhere in Nigeria confront us, are more tormenting and devastating than the rebellion which ended ignominiously about a month ago. It is our inescapable duty to contain and terminate these ravages, with all the resources at our disposal, and with all the skill and speed which we can jointly muster.

As long, however, as each State is left to fend for itself unaided, or half-heartedly aided, in such crucial matters as employment, education, health services, modernisation of agriculture, industrialisation, road and waterway development, and tiding over periods of need; and as long as attempts are made, at the same time, to apportion revenue strictly on the basis of population, or in vacuo without having any specified national objectives in view, so long would the evils of unemployment, etc., remain with us, engendering bitter bickering, and acrimonious wrangling on revenue allocation, and other national issues.

But I make bold to say that, if we succeed in getting ourselves to agree to tie allocation of revenue to the seven objectives which we have previously noted, certain beneficial results will be bound to follow: each State, regardless of individual wealth or the lack of it, Would be able to fulfil the sole purpose for which it was created, which is to cater to the best interests of the people under its jurisdiction; equal economic and social progress would be guaranteed to all our peoples irrespective of their State of habitation; there would be social harmony such as was never before witnessed in our land; and political stability would become the permanent lot of our beloved country.

In closing, I welcome you all to this Conference; and pray that our deliberations here may be fruitful, and beneficial to our country and people.

HOW TO ACHIEVE ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Full text of lecture delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo at the First Lecture in the UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS ANNUAL LECTURE SERIES on Friday, 15th March, 1968

I thank the Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues very much for the honour which they have done me by inviting me to deliver the first of the UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS ANNUAL LECTURES.

In his letter of invitation to me, the Vice-Chancellor had proposed five subjects, all of which are equally attractive, and difficult to treat, I have, therefore, chosen the one which I consider would have wider appeal and interest, and comparatively less intractable to treat, than the others. It is THE PATH TO ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

It is necessary, at the outset, to describe and define two phrases as carefully and precisely as possible. They are (1) Economic Freedom, and (2) Developing Countries.

In economic usage, economic freedom is a phrase of art. It is an inseparable characteristic of the capitalist system, It means – for the individual, interest group, or a country – freedom of industry and enterprise. In this sense, economic freedom epitomises what I choose to call the FOUR POSTULATES of capitalism, and its enjoyment is subject to the two fundamental economic forces of (1) supply and demand or the price mechanism, and (2) marginal utility or productivity.

The first of the four postulates is the postulate of PRIVATE PROPERTY. The right of the individual to own and control as much economic goods as he can successfully lay claim to, and can appropriate to himself by all legitimate means, is recognised and protected by law.

The second is the postulate of CHOICE. It is assumed that each individual has complete freedom of choice; ‘he may use his energy and property as he thinks fit’, subject only to such restraint as may be imposed upon him by law.

The third is the postulate of EQUALITY. Here it is posited that everyone ‘may work, live and freely contract on a basis of equality with others and with the same opportunity as his fellows.’ The fourth is the postulate of EGOISTIC ALTRUISM. Under this postulate it is assumed that by pursuing his economic self- interest, every individual unconsciously promotes at the same time the economic interests of others. The intention of the individual is not generally to promote public interest but his own security and gain. In the process, however, he is led by an ‘invisible hand’ to promote an end which was no part of his original intention. By deliberately promoting his own selfish interest, he promotes that of society more effectively than when he tries more consciously to promote it.

In other words, a country can be said to be free, in the capitalist economic sense, when, under the auspices of supply and demand and marginal utility, it exercises the right to property, to employ its resources as it thinks fit, to manage its affairs on the basis of equity and with the same opportunity as other countries, and to pursue its own self-interest to the exclusion of others.

But, in the context of this lecture, I am using the phrase in a politico-economic sense as applied not to an individual or group of individuals but to a country. In this sense, ECONOMIC FREEDOM EX[STS WHEN A POLITICAL SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, INDEPENDENTLY OF OUTSIDE CONTROL OR DIRECT[ON, ORGANISES THE EXPLOITATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF ITS TOTAL RESOURCES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS ENTIRE PEOPLE, UNDER A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE FORCES OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND OF MARGINAL UTILITY ARE CONTROLLED AND CANALISED FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

It is important to bear this distinction in mind for a number of reasons. Firstly, the postulates of capitalism are false and a snare; and the forces of supply and demand and of marginal utility, when they are allowed to operate without conscious control, are injurious to all human freedom. Secondly, it is possible for a country to be economically free in the capitalist sense, whilst the majority of its citizens are enslaved, as was the case in European countries under feudalism and laissez-faire capitalism. The converse of this is also true, namely: it is possible for the citizens to enjoy economic freedom in the capitalist acceptation of the term, whilst the country as a whole is economically enslaved, as is the case with developing countries including Nigeria. Thirdly, economic freedom, in the politico-economic sense, is the opposite of economic subjection, in the same sense. Whilst, in this sense, economic servitude for a country is a concomitant of political subjection, economic freedom does not necessarily go hand in hand with political independence.

It is generally agreed that the phrase DEVELOPING COUNTRY is a euphemism for UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY. The two phrases are synonymous. But for the sake of clarity, it is better to use UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY in place of DEVELOPING COUNTRY. To confine the latter phrase to economically backward countries is misleading and deceptive. No country in the world is stagnant or static. Every country is developing all the time, whether it is already highly developed, or terribly underdeveloped. Indeed, the so-called advanced or developed countries are, relatively, developing faster than the underdeveloped ones. The expression ‘underdeveloped countries’ is, therefore, more appropriate to distinguish those countries which are economically backward from those which are economically advanced.

A more or less arbitrary mathematical yardstick is sometimes used by economists to identify countries which are economically backward. If a country’s per capita national income is equal to or more than one-fourth of the per capita national income of the United States of America, it is said to be developed. If it is below one-fourth, the country is said to be underdeveloped. But, if we should go by this arithmetical identification, we would miss the true badges of economic backwardness, and the real differentiate of an underdeveloped country.

The outstanding physical features of an underdeveloped country must, therefore, be stated. The most prominent feature is extreme poverty. In an underdeveloped country, both the natural and human resources are partly unutilised, partly underutilised, and partly misutilised. This non-utilisation, underutilisation and misutilisation of resources are wholly due to lack of adequate capital and technique, and to ignorance and poor health, leading to general inertia and want of the requisite enthusiasm on the part of the country’s labour force.

Such of the country’s natural and human resources as are partially utilised and developed are mainly foreign-trade orientated. This orientation is promoted and encouraged by foreign enterprises for their own benefits, and it automatically generates a system of dual economy in the underdeveloped country. A lot of unhealthy economic consequences follow. The resources which are devoted to the production of export crops are comparatively better developed than those which are devoted to the production of domestic goods. The indigenous enterprisers who are engaged in foreign trade are usually better off, economically and materially, than those of their fellow-citizens who are engaged in domestic economic activities. This difference, in material rewards; induces the economically active sections of the community to ignore the cultivation of crops for domestic consumption in favour of export crops. The country itself becomes dependent on foreign trade for its economic sustenance. In order to pay comfortably for the primary produce imported by them, the foreign entrepreneurs deliberately stimulate in the more prosperous sections of the underdeveloped country an inordinate propensity to import. The resultant effects of his unwholesome foreign-trade orientation, in the underdeveloped country, are unfavourable terms of trade, unstable export markets, and a persistent adverse balance of payments.

It is common knowledge that any form of economic activity or development demands, in addition to natural and human resources, the existence of adequate capital as well as technological and managerial competence. All these, as we have hinted, are very insufficient in an underdeveloped country. Adequate capital is lacking because savings per capita are low, and savings per capita are low because technological and managerial knowledge is either nil or hopelessly deficient, and because the masses of the people are ignorant, and unhealthy, and hence economically unenthusiastic and undisciplined. In order to make up for these basic deficiencies, an underdeveloped country always strives to excel itself in creating a congenial and over-generous atmosphere for attracting foreign capital as well as technological and managerial personnel. In this process, it makes itself more economically subservient to foreign interests.

Furthermore, the gap between the rich and the poor is wider in an underdeveloped than in a developed country. The reason for this is not far to seek. The rich, in an underdeveloped country, are invariably the professionals, and those engaged in foreign-trade orientated activities – exporting agricultural products and importing finished articles; whilst the poor are those engaged in peasant and subsistence farming, and in unskilled employment.

If we apply the mathematical yardstick which we previously mentioned, to all the countries of the world, we will see that underdeveloped countries are to be found in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and that they all have one thing in common: the badge or stigma of antecedent colonial status.

There is one other feature which is common to all underdeveloped countries. As a result of the conquest of space and time, brought about by highly developed systems of communications and information media, all underdeveloped countries, without exception, are exposed to the demonstration effects of the consumption patterns of the developed countries. For psychological reasons, the underdeveloped countries unreflecting imitate these consumption patterns – placing premium on ostentations, status symbols and the like – with disastrous distortions to their economies, and disturbing and unsettling effects on their social structure and political progress, generally.

In view of all that has been said thus far on the point, AN UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY can be defined as ONE WHOSE NATURAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES ARE PARTLY UNUTILISED, PARTLY UNDERUTILISED, AND PARTLY MISUTILISED, AND IN WHICH THERE IS A GROSS DEFICIENCY IN THE QUALITY OF THE THREE PRODUCTIVE AGENTS OF LABOUR, CAPITAL AND ORGANISATION.

Two implied but important assumptions need to be explained.

Firstly, it has been assumed that every underdeveloped country has enough of natural and human resources for its purposes. It is true that some countries are richer in these things than others. But it is also true that, granting a rational exploitation, mobilisation and deployment of these resources, each country has enough of them to make it carryon a happy and economically free existence. Instances are not wanting.

Israel has shown that any kind of land or natural resources can be made productive, as long as the other productive agents, are sufficiently qualitative and optimally quantitative. What the Israeli experience has proved beyond any dispute is this: the only difference between a country which is rich and the one which is poor in natural resources, is that the same dose of the other productive agents will produce better results, when applied to the one than when applied to the other.

In the Sudan, the Gezira Scheme has also shown that natural resources which appear hostile and barren can be tamed and made abundantly fruitful, when the right quality and quantity of the other productive agents are applied to them. Under the Gezira Scheme, not only has a once-barren like desert-land been converted into one of the most fertile and productive areas on planet, but also the nomadic population, which was once uneconomic ally thinly spread all over the place, is now being permanently settled into viable and lively towns and villages.

Secondly, it has been assumed that nature has so organised the affairs of this world that no country is deficient in or starved of natural or human resources. Those economists who speak of under-population or over-population relative to the natural resources of a country, are, like Malthus before them, only building far-reaching theories on a complete misunderstanding of man’s infinite resourcefulness in the face of difficulties. When Malthus enunciated his famous but erroneous theory of population, he had taken the qualities of the productive agents as given for all time, and had not applied his mind to the vast improvement which was possible and which has since been made in the inherent qualities of such agents. It this stage in human development, it should be admitted that the optimal concept of population is a measure of man’s incapacity to keep pace with his economic problems, as and when they arise. From the foregoing definitions and analyses, two inferences appear to me to be incontestable. First, a country is underdeveloped simply because it lacks the following indispensable prerequisites of development, namely; education, and good health; technical, managerial and administrative competence; and capital. Second, an underdeveloped country, by the very fact of its underdevelopment, is permanently exposed to the foreign exploitation and deployment of its resources, and hence to economic dependence, subjection, and what is now called neo-colonialism, even though it is politically independent and sovereign.

The goals which an underdeveloped country must pursue, therefore, are quite clearly two. There is the immediate goal of economic freedom, and the ultimate one of being counted among the developed countries of the world. The two goals can be achieved almost simultaneously, provided they are pursued in the order in which I have stated them. I hold the view, quite strongly, that in the pursuit and attainment of economic freedom, economic prosperity is inevitable. But not the other way round.

Because I am convinced that every attempt on the part of an underdeveloped country to achieve economic prosperity, without first of all taking steps to ensure its economic freedom, is not only patently doomed to failure, but would also make the country’s economic enslavement more certain and tighter. In order to attain to the goal of economic freedom, however, an underdeveloped country must do certain things as a matter of urgency and priority.

It must provide education and health facilities for the masses of its citizens. It must breed and constantly maintain an adequate number of technicians, managers, and administrators. It must ensure, from year to year, that the quantity of its available capital is sufficient for its purposes. Since the welfare of the people is the aim of all economic activities, it must foster and insist on a balanced growth in all the sectors of its economy. It must discipline its citizens to eschew all forms of ostentatious consumption, be they traditional or foreign-inspired, as they tend and are bound, in the long run, to distort the utilisation of resources, and generate endemic social disequilibrium, which will in turn encourage foreign exploitation and economic enslavement. It must exploit, mobilise, and deploy its natural and human resources in such a manner as to benefit all its citizens relatively equally, and without discrimination. It must seek to be self-sufficient in non-durable consumer goods. At any rate, it must endeavour to export enough to pay for all such consumer and capital goods as it has to import. It must avoid, like the plague, an adverse balance of payments on consumer accounts, because it is this kind of economic factor, more than anything else, that forges, with ruthless effectiveness, a country’s chains of economic bondage. Foreign capital should be admitted only for the purpose of executing capital projects which are designed to strengthen the country’s economic freedom and self-reliance, as well as its self-respect for itself and its citizens abroad.

In its march to this goal and to the attainment of these objectives, two paths or two systems, with separate and distinct polarities, are open to an underdeveloped country. They are: the capitalist system, and the socialist system. There are other paths. But they are, in my view, nothing but empirically ineffective adaptations of one or other or both of these two systems.

To the underdeveloped country, groping its way to economic freedom and prosperity, the capitalist system is very tempting. Its achievements are not merely a matter of theoretical exposition or of recorded history of a distant past: they can be seen everywhere around us, and particularly on the continents of Europe, North America, and Australia. The cardinal virtue of the system, which is naked self-interest or greed otherwise known as private enterprise, is tirelessly and eloquently extolled by its protagonists. But very rarely are we told that this virtue is at once capitalism’s greatest vice and doom.

In examining the capitalist system, therefore, it is important that we should, as briefly as possible, consider its virtues and achievements as well as its basic postulates and vices. This procedure is essential in order that its claim per se, and relative to that of the socialist system, which will be considered later, may be justly assessed.

Before the advent of capitalism, slavery and serfdom were the order of the day. But it is on record that it was the capitalists, not the poor, impotent, miserable slaves and serfs, who, at different epochs, struck the blow which shattered feudalism and manumitted the slaves.

In the Middle Ages, some of the prouncements of science were regarded as heretical. But since the advent of capitalism, science and technology have been sedulously encouraged, and research has been generously endowed. Indeed, from the latter part of the eighteenth century when, with the birth of the industrial revolution, capitalism truly and confidently came into its own, it has swept and carried practically everything before it. It has given unparalleled impetus to science, technology and art. It has built new cities and beautified old ones. Its conquest of time and space is almost complete, and all mankind of all climes and tongues are now one

another’s neighbours. It has modernised the tools of production as well as the means of locomotion. In the process, it has internationalised industry and commerce. It has reduced and weakened the strongholds of ignorance, disease and poverty. It has made the rich richer; and the poor better off than they ever had been.

At the overthrow of feudalism and the abolition of slavery, it placed emphasis on freedom of enterprise and of choice, and proclaimed the doctrine of laissez-faire. Under the steam of this doctrine, it advocated and introduced free trade among nations. In the inevitable struggle which ensued, among the then advanced nations, for wider markets and for abundant sources of raw materials, the countries of Africa and Asia became areas of colonisation, or imperialistic spheres of influence. Africa was divided; British rule in India was extended and strengthened; and both China and Japan were compelled to enter into business relations with and for the benefit of Britain and America.

Wherever it was necessary to wage war in order to impose business intercourse on any country, it was done without qualm of conscience. For instance, the Opium War was fought in China in the years 1840-42 in order to compel China to buy opium. The great Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore, incisively described the opium trade as ‘Death Traffic in China.’

In the process of all these, the backward areas of the world were blessed with a new era of comparative peace and efficient administration. Their goods and resources were valorised. They received new enlightenment, and developed new aspirations. Such of the countries as were quick in the uptake, like Japan, made a tremendous leap forward. In 1868, three years after the United States, Britain, France and Holland had imposed trading intercourse on Japan, Meiji, Emperor of Japan, made a declaration which all underdeveloped countries must write in their hearts he said: ‘Knowledge shall be sought throughout the world, so that the welfare of the empire shall be promoted.’ On the spur of this declaration, Japan rose, in the words of H.G. Wells, from ‘a fantastic caricature of the extremest romantic feudalism’ in 1868, to be same’ level with the most advanced European powers’, in 1899. Other countries, which were not so resourceful and which did not pursue education with the same consuming fervour as Japan, have also benefited, but to a lesser extent, from their subservience to capitalist adventures.

So much for the achievements of the capitalist system. Let us now turn to the vices of the system.

As I have said before, the postulates of the capitalist system are false and untenable.

An examination of some of the causes of private property will reveal that it is unjust to recognise the right of the individual to private property without qualification.

Land is the gift of Nature, and was never at any time appropriated by Nature herself to any individual or family. Ab initio, the possession of land by a family or individual is the result of either forcible seizure or illegal and unauthorised appropriation. It is well known that uncultivated and unimproved or underdeveloped land does attract income or rent due to no efforts whatsoever on the part of the land-owner, but as a result, wholly and solely, of pressure of population, proximity to industrial or commercial activities, or some other causes to which the land-owner has made no contribution whatsoever. Even when a land-owner improves his land or builds on it, more often than not the building attracts rent out of proportion to the reward appropriate to the amount of capital invested in it.

Again, the entrepreneur who takes advantage of over-supply of labour coupled with short-supply of the commodities which he produces, makes an extraordinary profit or an unjust gain which he is perfectly entitled to keep as his private property.

The extent to which a person may employ his energy and property as he likes depends on the state of supply and demand which is quite outside his control. In circumstances where the demand for any commodity is great under conditions of limited supply, it is absolutely idle to talk of equality of contract as between the sellers and buyers of such commodity.

Apart from being a contradiction in terms, the postulate of egoistic altruism has never achieved the laudable ends which economists, since Adam Smith, ascribe to it. On the contrary, the relentless pursuit of his own self-interest and greed by every individual or interest group, has led mankind to the realms of incalculable wastes and miseries. Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ has turned out to be the blind umpire of a fierce and savage struggle in which the casualties in dead and wounded far outnumber recorded survivals. As a result, the entire productive paraphernalia of capitalist countries in Western Europe and America are today in the hands of a very few people who are the economic dictators of the capitalist world.

Besides, the capitalist system, under the guidance of the ‘invisible hand’, is always either breaking down or threatening to break down. From the birth of the industrial revolution in Europe, Britain has witnessed more than twenty-five trade cycles, and innumerable strikes and labour disputes and strifes; which means that those countries, with which she has trading intercourse, have also been afflicted by the same maladies to a more or less extent.

Various causes, beginning with Jevon’s Sun-spot Theory, right down to Keynes’s Savings/Investment Theory, have been assigned to explain the phenomenon of trade cycle. A careful examination of all the theories of trade cycles however, will reveal that its basic cause is economic MALADJUSTM ENT: maladjustment of supply of goods to demand, of supply of money to available goods, and of savings to investment. This maladjustment is endemic because of the inescapable lack of co-ordination (1) among the producers inter se, (2) between the producers and consumers, (3) between the producers on the one hand and the Monetary Authorities and Banking Institutions which handle savings on the one hand and the investors, or buyers of savings, on the other.

Furthermore, the injustices which arise from the processes of production, exchange, and distribution, are too inherent and deep-seated in the capitalist system for such injustices to be eliminated or even satisfactorily minimised.

Land and labour are the primary agents of production. In the beginning, all capital flows from the union of labour with land.

This was done by the combined processes of deliberate and inevitable abstentions from consumption. As time goes on, however, more and more capital is produced by the union of labour with land, aided by the agency of pre-existing capital set aside for the dual purpose of assisting these two primary agents in producing more wealth and capital.

This being so, the total wealth produced by the union of labour with land should, after necessary deductions for input depreciation, and new capital, go to labour. That is, labour of all kinds and gradations including skilled and unskilled, and technical, managerial and administrative labour-power. But under the capitalist system, the lion’s share goes to the so-called land-owner, owner of capital, and the absentee shareholder in the forms of rent, interest and profit.

The operations of supply and demand or of the marginal concept clothe practically all transactions relating to exchange of goods or services, with legality but with manifest social injustice and inequity. As we all know, exchange takes place between, shall we say, A and B, when either of them has preference for what the other is prepared to exchange. But the sole determinant of the quantity and value which the one is obliged to give to the other in exchange for that other’s goods, in order to make the exchange effective, is the forces of supply and demand and of the margin. If at any time A produces more or less than B requires, he will get less or more value, in the course of the exchange; and vice-versa. If for some reasons with which we are all quite familiar, the conditions of demand relative to supply favour A more than they favour B for a considerable length of time, A may become fabulously enriched at the expense of B, whilst the latter becomes miserably impoverished. This will be the case not because A works harder and more efficiently than B, but simply because the law of supply and demand and of the margin favours one more than the other.

It is a notorious fact that, under the capitalist system, abundance is punished, and scarcity is rewarded; so much so that an economic recession may occur simply because people have produced too much of the good things of this world. Indeed, the Great Depression of 1929-31 has been aptly described as the ‘Crisis of Plenty’.

Inherently, the capitalist system generates strikes, lockouts, and various forms of labour disputes which whilst they last are extremely wasteful to the economy. But the interesting phenomenon which we would like here to emphasise is that, in spite of the achievements of capitalism in improving the lot of workers, these industrial strifes continue to take place in an ever-rising crescendo. It is evident that the more the efforts put forward by capitalism to meet the particular and pressing demands of labour, the more acute, the more acrimonious, and the better organised is the next industrial dispute.

In its dealings with other countries, every capitalist nation in the world has followed very closely and vigorously in the footsteps of its indigenous capitalists who also invariably hold the reins of power. As a result, there is as much cut-throat competition in international trade as there ever has been in domestic trade. In the struggle for survival, each nation has had to resort to all manner and kind of malpractices. These inevitably have reduced international trading from the high ideal pedestal of mutual benefits and complementary advantages among all the nations of the world, to the low harrowing level of veritable nuisance and bane. Dumping, tariff protection, devaluation, begger-my-neighbour policy, are among the malpractices which have been introduced by all the nations of the world in the pursuit of the narrow national self-interest of each against the others.

In this fierce and savage struggle, the strong and rich nations continue to wax richer and more powerful, whilst relatively, the weaker and poorer ones continue to wane in their weakness and poverty. Consequently, the gap between the rich and the poor countries widens with the times.

Because his sole aim is to make profit, the capitalist is completely indifferent to any project which has no prospect of yielding profit now or in the not too distant future. For this reason, and because the reins of Government are in the hands of capitalists, the education of the citizens in most capitalist countries is unplanned and distorted, and their health largely neglected. As a result, the masses of the citizens remain enslaved to heredity, develop malignant and injurious sentiments, and give unfettered reins to negative and poisonous emotions such as anger, hate, fear, jealousy, selfishness and greed.

Several devices have been introduced and adopted by the capitalists with a view to correcting the evils and righting the wrongs of the capitalist system. Three of them may be mentioned as follows: (1) taxation, (2) incentives to workers, and (-3) rent and price controls. But all these and more have failed to achieve the purposes for which they are designed. Under the capitalist system, taxation is resented and strenuously evaded; incentives to workers are not only half-hearted but always hopelessly inadequate and unjustly calculated; rent and price controls are frustrated and ineffective in the face of short supplies of houses and goods.

It is now recognised by practically all the capitalist countries, that economic forces must, to some extent, be controlled and channelled. Various devices have been adopted to effect the desired control.

There are monetary and budgetary controls. These are effected by means of the manipulation of interest rates, credit squeeze, open market operations, the issuing of administrative guidance and guideline to banking and other monetary institutions, imposition and remission of tax, export subsidy and import quota, tariff measures, devaluation, expansion and contraction of public works through the instrumentalities of deficit and surplus budgeting, etc, etc. Many governments and their agencies have entered into the field to increase the supply of houses, and to provide and operate public utilities. And a few have embarked on the direct management of some industries, and commercial undertakings.

It is believed that by means of all these manipulations of economic forces, and by means of indirect and direct controls and direction of specific categories of individuals, firms and transactions, efficient exploitation and mobility of resources, and co-ordination of the means of production, exchange, and distribution, will be achieved for the benefit and happiness of the people. But experiences have shown that all these partial, spasmodic, and half-hearted devices, which are erroneously given the label of PLANNING, have only succeeded in making the economic confusions under capitalism worse confounded.

Just as the need for some form of domestic control and direction of economic forces has dawned on most, if not all, of the countries of the world, so has the necessity for some form of international Control and direction of these same forces become manifest to all the Governments of the world. To this end, various Agreements and Institutions have been and are being executed and established. As a result, we now have World Commodity Agreements for wheat, tin, coffee, sugar, copper, etc. An International Commodity Agreement for cocoa is still in the making. We have World. Organisations like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to mention the principal ones, which are established for the purposes respectively of providing capital for development, facilitating international liquidity, and promoting the gradual elimination of all artificial barriers to international trade.

The objectives of these Organisations and of their subsidiaries are bold and laudable. But their achievements have been most uninspiring and unedifying. In spite of their outward sophistication and civilisation, and of their altruistic protestations, the nations which compose these International Bodies still pursue their individual naked economic self-interests and aggrandisement. Indeed, there is, among them, unassailable evidence of an increasing overtone of what Sir Norman Angell termed, some thirty years ago, the ‘economics of cannibalism’. Around the different International Bodies, various interest and pressure groups have been formed to strengthen their joint ‘cannibalistic’ designs. And so, we have the Group, and other groups, all of which seek not to promote the overall common interests but to advance their sectional economic greed, aggrandisement, and supremacy.

Now, when you want to eat me and I also want to eat you, it is difficult, indeed impossible, whatever may be our verbal declarations to the contrary, to agree on an arrangement which will redound to the survival of both of us, let alone our prosperity and happiness. It should be quite clear from what I have said thus far that the vices and evils of capitalism cannot be cured by adopting a capitalist approach to them. But the worst of these evils remains to be considered. It is that, in its essence and intrinsic nature, capitalism offends against the principles of dialectic.

Whenever we speak of the dialectic, two great names readily come to mind. They are Hegel and Marx. They are par excellence the propounders of the principles of dialectic as we currently know them. But they are not the originators of dialectic.

As Plato originally used it, dialectic meant the process by which man’s mind, either in disputation with another person or with itself in the form of an ‘inner dialogue’, tries to discover the truth of any matter in issue. By means of questions and answers, the contradictions in any matter under discussion are exposed and rejected, and the truth is ultimately arrived at. As a later development, Plato regarded the dialectic itself as the very embodiment of truth.

About 24 centuries later, Hegel introduced what he called ‘the loftier dialectic’. According to him, dialectic is not an activity of the mind applied to some external matter in issue with a view to exposing its contradictions and discovering its truth. Rather the Hegelian dialetic is the unfolding of the very soul of the matter itself under the impetus of the idea. The idea is complete in itself and absolute. It has in itself and in absolute perfection the qualities of freedom, justice, equality, truth and other forms of social ideals and moralities. But since the idea is a Spirit, it seeks through the dialectic to realise itself in the concrete world of men and matters.

In other words, the dialetic means simply the interaction between the idea on the one hand, and the events of nature as well as what Hegel terms ‘the complex of human passions’ on the other. It is from this interaction that, to use another of Hegel’s graphic expressions, ‘the vast arras-web of universal history’ is woven. The principles of dialectic, as propounded by Hegel, therefore, are the principles of change and of progress: of progress ‘from lower to higher; from part to whole; from the indeterminate to the determinate’.

Hegel regards each stage reached by the idea in its dialectic procession to absolute self-realisation as a THESIS. But since each such stage falls short of perfection, the dialectic, of its Own volition, calls into being a movement designed to remove the prevailing imperfection. This counter-movement, Hegel calls the ANTITHESIS. With the emergence of the antithesis, a war of attrition between the thesis and the antithesis begins. At first the waging of this war is imperceptible; then, it becomes fairly obvious that such a war is in progress; and then, in the end a sudden explosion Occurs in which both the thesis and antithesis, in their original forms, disappear, and the SYNTHESIS appears which embodies the best in both, but with the best in the antithesis being the dominant feature of the synthesis. For a while the dialectic process comes to a temporary halt: ‘the antithesis is in abeyance’. But in due Course of time, the dialectic procession resumes its forward march, as Perfection is not yet reached. At the commencement of this renewed march, the synthesis becomes the thesis which in turn calls forth its own antithesis. And so on and so forth, until perfection is reached.

It will be seen, therefore, that every stage in world history and development which is short of perfection contains in it-the germ of its own radical and revolutionary reformation.

Marx himself, once a Hegelian of the left, disagrees with the hegelian dialectic. Whilst he accepts hegel’s dialectic cycle of THESIS – ANTITHESIS – SYNTHESIS – THESIS, he rejects the Hegelian proposition that the events of Nature and of history, and the ideals of freedom, justice, religion, etc., which man cherishes, are the progressive objectification of the Idea. In Marx’s view, all these are nothing but the rationalisation of the antagonistic positions which opposing classes of people occupy in relation to the material forces of Nature, and to production.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, exhibit three basic ideas, namely; (1) that economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; (2) that consequently, ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land, all history has been it history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution; and (3) that, by its normal operations, capitalism has produced its own grave-diggers, and that ‘its fall and the victory of the proletariat are inevitable’.

It will be seen that from the Hegelian or Marxian standpoint, capitalism, being an imperfect social system, is a thesis which is destined to bring forth its own antithesis which will contend with and destroy it, in due course of time.

But the sense in which I use the dialectic is different from both the Hegelian and Marxian senses, though the result is the same. I begin by affirming an a priori proposition that the universe is a cosmos and not a chaos. There is an immutable law which rules in the physical world of matters and action as well as in the intangible and subjective world of thoughts, ideas, and ideals. This immutable law is sometimes referred to as the universal mind. It is latent, dominant and inactive until it is set in motion by human thoughts, words, and actions.

It is now well established by the science of psychology, which was in its embryonic stages in the times of Hegel and Marx, that just as there is a conscious mind which functions through our five senses, so there is the subconscious mind which operates independently of Our objective faculties through the autonomic system of nerves and Some well-identified glands, and that whatever suggestion or idea is accepted and entertained by the conscious mind tends to be accepted by the subconscious mind which materializes such suggestion or idea in the physical world of matters, whether we like it or not.

If we persistently think and cherish good thoughts, good will result; if evil, evil will result. Always, the law is latent and static; and man’s thought, word and deed are dynamic and, through the dialectic process, puts the law in motion and concrete materialisation.

It follows, therefore, that any thought, word or action which is selfish, hateful and evil will produce selfish, hateful and evil results. Similarly, any thought, word, or action which is other-regarding, altruistic, loving, and good, will produce other-regarding, altruistic, loving and good results.

Like cause always produces like effect. In kind, we always reap what we sow; but quantitatively, we always reap much more than we sow, One good seed always produces its kind ‘a hundred fold.’ Ditto for one evil seed. But whilst the good seed, in spite of even the stiffest Obstruction and Opposition, proliferates, flourishes, and transcends itself in quality, through aeons of time, the bad seed, in spite of the most generous encouragement, tends, through time, though sometimes imperceptibly, to diminish in quantity and degenerate in quality until suddenly it suffers total extinction. This in my opinion is the statement of the concrete manifestation of the true dialectic.

As it was with Slavery, feudalism, and other evil customs and systems in history, so it will be with any extant and prevailing evil system. We can only temporarily delay the full fructification of any good idea, we cannot permanently prevent it. Conversely, we can only temporarily accelerate the fruition of any evil idea, we can never Succeed in perpetuating it. Good shall surely, though sometimes slowly, grow and manifest itself; but evil shall also surely, though oftentimes slowly and imperceptibly, wane in strength and finally perish.

The touchstone of what is good, be it in thought, or word or action, is LOVE. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves. ‘That is the law and the prophets.’ Anything therefore – any thought or word or action – which falls short of LOVE is evil, and holds within itself the germ of its own eventual and inevitable destruction.

The inference now becomes irresistible that as long as greed or naked self-interest remains the prime and main motivation of any social system, that system must always of a necessity generate countervailing greed and naked self-interest in everyone whom its operations affect, and in the process of time it will degenerate and perish. This is why I feel confident in predicting that capitalism is doomed to perish, and that whilst it lasts it will continue to be a fruitful source of injustice, discontent, strife, moral weakness and degeneracy, and widespread relative poverty and distress.

So much for the capitalist system. We now turn to the socialist system. We must begin a consideration of this system by asking a pertinent question: What is socialism?

Socialism is a normative social science. It is in the same category as Ethics. But whilst the latter seeks to set the standards for human conduct, socialism seeks to establish the standards for economic behaviour and social objectives. It is, in a very important respect, unlike the science of economics which studies the forces at work in any society and in the world at large in man’s efforts to satisfy infinite ends with limited and scarce means which have alternative uses.

Socialism, as a normative science, also studies these forces, but goes much further. It sets the standards of human ends which economic forces must serve, and prescribes the methods by which these forces may be controlled, directed, and channelled for attainment of the ends in view.

Socialism is also to be distinguished from and contrasted with communism, and the Marxist concept of socialism. Communism is a state of social perfection in which the principle ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his need’ shall apply. On its advent, the dictatorship of the proletariat would come to an end, the ‘State’ everywhere would be replaced by ‘Community’, and the talents of each citizen would be so highly developed, that in his skills he would far transcend the capitalist technology of micro-division of labour and acquire the all-embracing communist technology which would make it possible for him ‘to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic’.

As far as Marx and Engels are concerned, socialism is an intermediate stage between the era of catalism and that of communism. The principle of socialism is ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his deed’, and its high-water mark is the dictatorship of the proletariat under which the bourgeoisie –  that is the capitalists –  are Suppressed and finally exterminated.

My own concept of socialism is entirely different from communism and the Marxian concept of socialism. In my view, the economic forces at work, in any country and in the world at large must be brought under complete control, coordinated, tamed, and humanised for the benefit of all. Any system, therefore, under which either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat oppress or suppress the other offends against my Own concept of the dialectic and is bound to fail, because, since it is grounded in mutual hatred, it of a necessity contains within it the germ of its own eventual dissolution.

The principle of socialism can, therefore, be restated thus: From each according to his ability, and to each according to his deed or need as the case may be. The cardinal virtue of socialism is that it is grounded firmly and immovably in mutual love among men in this connection, it is necessary to emphasise that from the examples of socialist countries, it is obvious that the only known vices of socialism are purely external and procedural, not intrinsic. They are therefore curable.

In general terms, the aims of socialism are social justice and equality, and a state of affairs in which the resources provided by nature belong to all the citizens equally, and the products of the union of land and labour are appropriated to labour of all gradations and skills through the media of good wages, respectable standards of living, abolition of unemployment, free provision of basic social amenities such as education, health, etc.

In actual practice, the attainment of these objectives will involve: (1) the abolition of all kinds of unearned income including economic rent and inheritance; (2) the legal elimination of the rentier class; (3) the recognition that all the able-bodied citizens of the State are workers or labourers of various gradations and skills, and that this being so all such able-bodied citizens who work or render services to and in the country are entitled to remunerations, only in the forms of salaries and wages of various scales or equivalent earnings or fees; (4) the effective co-ordination of all economic activities and the direct control of economic forces; (5) the sustained pursuit of full employment policy; (6) the provision by government of free educational and health facilities for all citizens; (7) the care by government of the infirm, disabled, and aged; (8) the regulation of consumption by legislative acts; and (9) subject to the dictates of prudence and pragmatism, the vesting in the State of all the means of production, exchange and distribution.

These objectives are highly controversial, and there are a number of forensically formidable objections which have been and can be urged against them. In this lecture, however, time does not permit me to expatiate on the socialist aims as I have stated them; and to marshal and refute all the traditional and possible objections to these aims. With the permission of the Vice-Chancellor, however, I would like to say that in my next book, ‘THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC’, which, it now seems certain, will be published by 1st October this year, I have dealt in extenso with these aims and the objections to them.

To sum up, it is abundantly clear that the evils of the capitalist system are naked self-interest, greed, and the gross and irremediable injustices arising from the forces of supply and demand and the margin. Since these evils are inherent in, and inseparable from, the capitalist system and since they tend, inexorably, to make the weak progressively weaker relatively, and the underdeveloped country more systematically enslaved as an economic entity, every underdeveloped country will be wise resolutely to avoid the capitalist system.

At the same time, I have tried to show that the socialist system is preferable to the capitalist system, because it is devoid of the evils of the latter, and is positively superior to it. This then, in my considered judgment, is the path to economic freedom in underdeveloped countries. But it must be emphasised that there is an imperative and indispensable need for thorough and detailed planning, and stem discipline of body and mind, to make the socialist’ system work, and to ensure, under it, effective and efficient mobilisation, co-ordination, deployment, and development of an the available natural and human resources.

In direct contrast, the capitalist path does not require the attributes of planning and discipline on the part of those who choose to tread’ it. Indeed, the rules of the path forbid planning and discipline. And such indirect controls and directions as are occasionally attempted to make the path safe for its users are invariably frustrated-by the inherent vices of the system. Consequently, the path of capitalism is unavoidably strewn with injustices; gross inequalities; strifes; incessant social collisions; recurrent distresses; an assured economic enslavement for underdeveloped countries; and leads, dialectically, to eventual and certain doom and perdition.

On the other hand, the socialist path is paved with mutual love, social justice, the triumph of human dignity, and economic freedom for underdeveloped countries. But in order to tread it successfully, it demands as I have said before, the attributes of planning and discipline, in their best forms.

From the foregoing analyses, therefore, my own considered verdict is that the path to economic freedom in developing countries is socialism.

MAN IS THE SOLE DYNAMIC IN NATURE

A Call for Free Education and Free Healthcare Delivery for ALL Nigerians as contained in the University of Ife Convocation Speech by Chief Obafemi Awolowo on Saturday, 6th July, 1974.

Those who are familiar with my views on the subject of education will not be surprised, if I say that the recent announcement by the Federal Military Government that it is going to introduce compulsory universal primary education in the near future (the date is still uncertain) has been made four years too late, and falls short of what the nation needs and deserves.

The crucial point, which I want our rulers, planners, and official advisers to bear in mind, is that man is the sole dynamic in nature; and that accordingly, every individual Nigerian constitutes the supreme economic potential which this country possesses.

It is axiomatic that man can create nothing. But, by an intelligent and purposive application of the exertions of his body and mind, he can exploit natural resources to produce goods and services for immediate consumption, and for capital outlay.

Therefore, other things being equal, the healthier his body and the more educated his mind, the greater will be his morale and the more efficient and economical he becomes as a producer and consumer.

The Japanese, the Russians, and the Chinese appreciate, to the full, the truth of this position; and that is why Edmund J. King in his book, entitled’ World perspective in Education’, is able to say the  following about these three countries:

‘Modern Japan has been made by education within the lifetime of people still surviving. The Soviet Union’s strength is based even more remarkably upon its educational system, and has reached its present level within two generations of scholastic advance. The revolution in China is still too recent to justify prophecy but without star-gazing we cannot fail to be impressed already (if not alarmed) by the tremendous technological and social upheaval going on there – all intricately bound up with educational reformation … EDUCATION CANNOT BE PARTIAL, RATIONED OR SELFISHLY ENJOYED. ANY ATTEMPT SO TO RESTRICT IT WILL DEEPEN THE CHASM BETWEEN THE ‘HAVES’ AND THE ‘HAVE NOTS’. Our nemesis will be all the more catastrophic when it occurs, as soon it will. Nothing could be more dangerous than ignorance, indifference, and ideological isolationism. We cannot afford not to see our educational aims and practice in their true world context.

With this quotation, and the foregoing remarks, I would like to make the following three suggestions for the serious and favourable consideration of the Federal Military Government:

FIRST: AS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT ACADEMIC YEAR, EDUCATION SHOULD BE MADE FREE AT SECONDARY AND POST-SECONDARY LEVELS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

This is one of the ways to ensure the smooth take-off and the successful operation of the compulsory universal primary education itself, when it comes, say, in four years’ time. If it is considered necessary to give counter-balancing or matching education grants to the so-called educationally backward parts of the country between now and the actual introduction of the compulsory universal primary education, by all means, the Federal Military Government should not hesitate to give’ such grants.

On this issue, it would be untenable now for the opponents of free education at all levels to plead ‘lack of money’ as they used to do, dogmatically hitherto, without making any effort to marshal convincing arguments in support.

For, thanks to our God for the oil that flows in a flood for everybody to see, one does not now “need to be an economist or financial expert to appreciate that we have the money – the abundant means – to finance free education at all levels, if we have the will and the vision to do so.

It follows, therefore, that if our rulers, planners, and official advisers continue to set their minds against this policy, it will simply be because, for reasons best known to them, they are unwilling to embark on a golden enterprise, which more than anything else, made it possible for Japan, the USSR, and China to achieve rapid and self-reliant economic development and growth, within the span of twenty-five short years.

SECOND: AS A COROLLARY, THE REPAYMENT OF ALL LOANS, HITHERTO GIVEN TO NIGERIAN STUDENTS FOR THEIR EDUCATION BY ANY OF OUR GOVERNMENTS, SHOULD BE WAIVED.

This will put all educated Nigerian youths, regardless of their States of origin, on the same footing in the race of life. A state of affairs in which, by way of analogy, some start the swimming race of life free from debt, whilst others are made to enter the same race with heavy stones of debt tied to their feet, is anything but egalitarian.

THIRD: As a further corollary, and on the principle of SOUND MIND IN SOUND BODY, steps should also be initiated now for the provision of curative and preventive medical facilities, including the provision of pipe-borne water supply and mass immunisation against endemic diseases, throughout the country.

It is these three measures that will constitute the psycho-social (or, if you like, ideological) rock-foundation on which all other social edifices, be they economic or political, can be securely and permanently erected. It is my unshakable belief that neither time, nor strife, nor even a change of Government can destroy this rock-foundation. And it should be realised before it is too late, that any other foundation, however solid-looking, is quicksand.

Indeed, it is the introduction of these three measures, far more than such measures as the creation of more States, the fashioning of a new Constitution, and anything else, that will satisfy the deep yearnings and aspirations of our entire people, promote their individual welfare and best interests, and, at the same time, immortalise for good the tenure of military rule in Nigeria and all those associated with that rule.

POWER ENSLAVES. ABSOLUTE POWER ENSLAVES ABSOLUTELY

A dare-devil warning that General Yakubu Gowon might not possess the higher virtues of courage, dedication and self-sacrifice to free himself from the shackles of power so as to be able to fulfil his promise to voluntarily hand over the administration of Nigeria to a popularly elected civilian government in 1976. The speech is contained in the prophetic University of Ife Convocation address by Chief Obafemi Awolowo on Saturday, 6th July, 1974.

In speaking about 1976, I will start off by stating arid explaining’ briefly two propositions of a universal character. They are deducible from a study of history and of human nature anywhere in the world.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION IS THAT IN THE PROCESS OF ANY GREAT UNDERTAKING, TWO STAGES ARE CRUCIAL: THE MOMENT OF DECISION AND THE MOMENT OF FULFILMENT.

Both of them call for courage, dedication and self-sacrifice; but the moment of fulfilment, being the more crucial, call for much higher order of these attributes.

The two moments can concur, but not always especially where some detailed work has to be done between decision and fulfilment. Whenever there is a time-lag between decision and fulfilment arrives; and the longer the time interval, the greater the requisite sense of courage, dedication and self-sacrifice must be sustained through time, until the moment of fulfilment arrives; and the longer the time interval, the greater the strain, and the more difficult it is to sustain alive and on a higher scale, the attributes called forth at the stage of decision.

The reason for this is understandable; the affairs of man are always susceptible to internal and external frictions or influences. Consequently many otherwise great characters in history have failed at the moment of fulfilment or action.

Gethsemane may be likened to the moment of fulfilment: But it took Jesus Christ alone to watch, pray, and triumph there; as for His Disciples, they became utterly dispirited at Gethsemane and later fled and deserted their Master until the Resurrection.

It should not surprise anyone, therefore, if ordinary mortals, before and after Christ, lost heart at the approaches to their lesser Gethsemanes.

THE SECOND PROPOSITION IS THIS: POWER ENSLAVES: ABSOLUTE POWER ENSLAVES ABSOLUTELY.

I have made a diligent search through history, and I have not come across a single instance where a regime, be it military or civilian, which has come to power AT ITS OWN WILL, and has wielded that power for many years, has found it easy to extricate itself from the sweet uses and shackles of power, and then hand it ‘over to others outside its own hierarchy. It is possible, quite possible, that my search is not exhaustive and so, I stand to be corrected.

Anyway, history or no history, it is common knowledge that, in the context of contemporary Africa, TENACITY OF OFFICE is the order of the day amongst those in power and authority in the Continent.

I DEFINE TENACITY OF OFFICE AS A POLITICAL MONSTROSITY WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE AN INORDINATE AND SHAMELESS LOVE OF POWER FOR ITS OWN SAKE, AND A MORBID TENACITY FOR PUBLIC OFFICE EVEN WHEN ALL THE LEGITIMACY FOR CONTINUING IN SUCH PUBLIC OFFICE HAS COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED.

In the light of the foregoing, it is certainly not going to be an easy matter for the Supreme Military Council to hand over power to civilians in 1976.

But, if our Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, is able to bring his characteristic courage, dedication and self-sacrifice to bear, and is also able to overcome the lower but powerful natural instincts and inclinations which must occasionally well up in him as a human being; if he is able to ‘resist and neutralise all the external pressures and influences with which he must have been constantly assailed on all sides by heavily-disposed as well as well-meaning Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike; and if, above all, he is able to carry his military colleagues with him right up to the last moment of fulfilment in 1976, he will go down not only to Nigerian history but also to world history as, to borrow Hegel’s graphic expression, ‘A HERO’, ‘THE MAN OF ACTION’, and ‘THE WORLD-HISTORICAL INDIVIDUAL. ‘

It is, I am sure, the sincere prayers of all of us that it may please Almighty God to uphold and strengthen General Gowon and the Supreme Military Council in the fulfilment of their voluntary and solemn promise to the good people of this great land to return power to civilians in 1976.

1973 PROVISIONAL CENSUS RESULT STRUCK FEAR AND DREADFUL FOREBODINGS

A most courageous articulation of the nationwide feeling of disgust for the Sir Adetokunbo Ademola s alarming Provisional Census figure of 1973 to which the Supreme Military Council of General Yakubu Gowon gave a loud acceptance and open protective support. It is the final part of the historic University of Ife

Convocation Speech by Chief Obafemi Awolowo on Saturday, 6th July, 7974.

1973 PROVISIONAL CENSUS RESULT

From the time it was first conducted in 1931, census enumeration in Nigeria has consistently produced disputable result.

The 1931 enumeration made no pretence at all to comprehensive count or accuracy. At best, the whole exercise was an intelligent gestimate, in-so-far as the Southern part of the country was concerned.

In Economic Survey of Nigeria 1959, published under the direction of Nigeria’s National Economic Council, the following comment is made at page 103:

‘ … The 1931 census figures for southern Nigeria, apart from Lagos, were rarely more than an estimate of population based on the number of males assessed for tax … ‘

Having regard to the hostility of the people of the South to taxation (vide Adubi Rising of 1918 and Aba Riot of 1930), and the widespread tax evasion prevalent in that part of the country, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that, for the South at least, the 1931 census erred on the side of gross underestimation.

There are good grounds for the view that the 1952/53 census figures represent an equally gross underestimation for the whole country.

In the first place, the siting of schools in the Western Region in 1953 and 1954 revealed that a large number of villages had been omitted from the count. These omissions were further confirmed by the huge excess of the number of children actually registered in 1954 over the estimated number based on the census figures of 1952.

In the second place, according to the Western Region of Nigeria Statistical Abstract, the estimated population of the Western State in 1951, at 2 per cent growth rate, based on the 1931 underestimation is 4.505 million. But the 1952 enumeration yielded a figure of 4.35 million for the Western State. An estimate based on the 1931 figure at 2 per cent growth rate, would have yielded 4.6 million for the Western State in 1952 as against 4.35 million.

In the third place, an estimate based on Unesco’s Statistical Yearbook’s estimated population figure for Nigeria for 1950 should give us an estimated population of37.047 million in 1953. But the actual enumeration gave us 30.417 million, which is 6.630 million less than UNESCO’s estimate at 2.5 per cent growth rate.

The 1962 census result was rejected; and so, we do not need to dwell upon it, except to take note of it as another instance of the ungracious career of census enumeration in Nigeria.

In 1963, however, we had another headcount which gave Nigeria a population of 55.670 million.

The U’N. Statistical Yearbook 1971 gives the midyear estimate for 1963 as 46.324 million which is 9.346 million less than the 1963 census result.

This YEARBOOK has the following footnote at page 72 on Nigeria’s census figure for 1963:

‘There is a possibility that the 1963 census overstated the . population. The size of this possible overstatement may be judged from the midyear estimates for 1963 and 1970 provided by the United Nation’s Population Division.’

I will be the last person to dismiss independent estimates made by the United Nation’s Population Division out of hand.

But after a careful study of all the available data and information on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that, of all the ugly and disputable census results with which Nigeria has had the misfortune to be afflicted from 1931 to 1973, the LEAST UGLY or, if you like, the LEAST DISPUTABLE OF THEM ALL IS THE 1963 CENSUS RESULT.

The reasons are not far to seek.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the figures for 1931 and 1953 suffer from gross underestimation. That being so, the growth rate of 5.6 per cent indicated between 1953 and 1963 should be taken as containing compensatory elements for the excessive errors and omissions of 1931 and 1953.

Secondly, in one of the footnotes, the U.N. Statistical Yearbook 1971 states that its estimate of 46.324 million for 1963, which is printed in italics at page 64, is of ‘QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY’.

Thirdly, in Africa South of the Sahara 1974 (a Europa Publication), at page 587, Professor Ojetunji Aboyade and Miss Jane Carroll, after making reference to the figure of between 41.5 million and 45 million at which independent estimates put our population in 1963, comment on our current population figure, as projected by the Federal Office of Statistics, as follows:

‘HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT INDIRECT EVIDENCE (e.g. STATISTICAL FIELD RETURNS Of THE MASS VACCINATION CAMPAIGN) THE CURRENT OFFICIAL FIGURE OF TOTAL POPULATION MAY WELL BE NEAREST THE TRUTH THUS INDICATING GROSS UNDERCOUNTING FOR 1931 AND 1952/53 CENSUSES.’

This brings me to the 1973 census result.

I have examined this result from several standpoints which time does not permit me to elaborate upon here, and as a result, I have been irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the so-called PROVISIONAL FIGURES are absolutely unreliable and should be totally rejected by the Supreme Military Council.

In the first place, based on UNESCO’s estimate in its Statistical yearbook 1972, at 2.5 per cent growth rate, our estimated population for 1973 should be 59.63 million. The 79.76 million population, which we are now trying to bestow upon ourselves is, therefore, 20.40 million more than the estimate based on the UNESCO projection. By comparison, the U.N. and UNESCO estimates gave us 46.324 million in 1963 as against 55.670 million. In 1963, therefore, we exceeded the UNESCO estimate only by 9.34 million; whereas in 1973 we exceeded the U.N. and UNESCO estimate by 20.40 million.

IT FOLLOWS THAT, IF THE 1963 FIGURES ARE ‘NEAREST THE TRUTH’, THEN THE 197.3 FIGURES ARE ‘FURTHEST FROM THE TRUTH’.

In the second place, during the intercensal periods of 1931 to 1953 and 1953 to 1963, the trend in inter-regional population movements showed that the South was gaining steadily at the expense of the North.

In 1931, the population of the North was 58 per cent of the total for the country, in 1953 it was 55 per cent; and in 1963 it was 54 per cent.

I hasten to add that it does not even require arithmetical calculations such as these to demonstrate that the South has, population wise since 1931, been gaining steadily at the expense of the North: the trend is visible for everyone in Nigeria to see. And having regard to the existing economic and social circumstances of the country, this trend is not only natural and normal, but also necessary and welcome.

The 1973 PROVISIONAL census figures have, however, shown a complete and sharp reversal of this normal trend. During the intercensal period of 1963 to 1973, the North has moved from 54 per cent of total population to 65 per cent. Unless it can be established that there was gross undercounting of the North in 1963 as compared with the rest of the country, which from all available evidence was certainly not the case, what the 1973 provisional result necessarily implies, therefore, among other things, is that many more Southerners had moved to the North between 1963 and 1973 than the other way round. This is obviously not the case. On the contrary, as We all know, population movement from the North to the South Was greater and more massive in the last ten years than ever before.

In the third place, the average population growth rate for Africa as a whole is 2.7 per cent, whilst the growth rates in West African countries range between 1.9 per cent and 3 per cent.

The 1973 provisional census result for Nigeria, however, indicates that the range of growth rates in our 12 States is between – 0.62 per cent in the Western State and 7.04 per cent in the North-Eastern State.

THIS JUST CANNOT BE TRUE. And for anyone seriously to suggest that it can in the face of the visible, tangible relative factors for population growth in the different States in the country, is to deny ordinary commonsense to the Nigerian populace, and to inflict grievous wounds both on our body politic and on the feelings of thinking Nigerian citizens.

In the fourth place, the provisional figures have revived, with greater vividness and starker reality, the erstwhile fear of permanent domination of one group of Nigerians by another.

According to the provisional figures, the population of North-East and Kana States alone is almost equal to that of the South put together. And if the utterly false trends of population growths in the States, indicated by the provisional figures, were contrived and repeated in 1983 – and one cannot now see, if the provisional figures are allowed to stand, why a repeat performance should not occur in 1983; if the same trends were repeated in 1983 by the same contrivances, then 74 per cent of all Nigerians would be living in the North, ten years from now!

The fear and dreadful forebodings which the provisional figures struck into the minds of many Nigerians have been further heightened, on reflection, by the steady erosion of the powers of the States in favour of the Federal Government. A close analysis of the situation will reveal that the country is already sliding back to a unitary form of Government behind an imposing facade of federalism. And as we all know, under a unitary form of Government, by whatever name called and no matter how many ineffective States there are in the country, whichever party controls the Central Government controls all, and dominates all.

The seeds of fierce inter-ethnic strife are already sown by the provisional figures; all Nigerian patriots, both in the North and the South, must unite in an appeal to the Supreme Military Council to prevail on the National Census Board to remove the seeds before they germinate and grow.

I am aware that those responsible for the 1973 census figures would like us to treat them as PROVISIONAL ONLY. I am also aware that they have assured us that they are immediately embarking on rigorous post-enumeration tests, surveys and checks which by the end of this year, would produce final accurate figures which could be greater or less than the so-called provisional figures.

It is my humble, respectful, but considered view that, again, we should all appeal to the National Census Board and to our Head of State, H.E. General Yakubu Gowon, to prevail upon the Board, to desist from this post-enumeration exercise. It can have no useful or beneficial end: it can only produce result which would exacerbate feelings which are already wounded and embittered; or embitter those that are now at peace with the Board.

In the end, it would only involve the nation in further colossal dissipation and waste of energy and money. During the period of waiting, greater inter-state and inter-ethnic tension would be generated, and their deep wound already inflicted on our body politic would have that much time to fester and become traumatic.

There are other reasons why the proposed post-enumeration exercise should be abandoned.

In the first place, final census figures after post-enumeration checks, etc., are never more than 5 per cent above or below the provisional figures. In the instant case 5 per cent above would land us in a desert of deep inter-ethnic distrust from which it would take us long to escape: 5 per cent below would only confirm us in the present deplorable and intolerable position. Up to and more than 10 per cent below would be proof positive of the worthlessness of the provisional figures.

In the second place, it is idle, in the extreme, to rely on the same inefficient machinery by means of which the National Census Board had produced these appallingly indefensible provisional figures to mend itself in the short time at our disposal, and produce acceptable final figures.

In this connection, it must be borne in mind that, to be acceptable, the final figures must show unmistakably that those States which Were made to score minus – or low – growth rates have been restored to normalcy; whilst those which had been gratuitously endowed with maxi-growth rates have been made to diminish drastically their abnormal oversize.

In the third place, I do not see how the Census Board could achieve these manifestly desirable ends. For one thing, those who have been endowed with maxi-growth rates are not likely to cooperate in cutting themselves to size. For another, the National Census Board, for the sake of their own reputation, and because of the encomiums which they have received from pre-eminent quarters, are not likely to have the incentive to achieve a final result which is widely at variance with their provisional figures. Already they have been made to believe that their performances so far, which we all heartily deplore, are nonpareil. Superlative public tributes (not to mention innumerable private ones) which, by all accounts, are wholly undeserved, have been paid to the National Census Board by our Head of State himself, and by another member of the Supreme Military Council.

On 18th May, 1974, the days after the provisional figures were announced, the New Nigerian carried the following report about H.E. Usman Faruk, Military Governor of North- Western State:

“Military Governor of the North Western State, Assistant Police Commissioner Usman Faruk, has described the 1973 national census as ‘THE MOST REALISTIC AND THOROUGH POPULATION HEADCOUNT EVER CONDUCTED IN THIS COUNTRY”.

“Speaking on the weekly RKTV programme, ‘Meeting Point’ in Kaduna last Thursday night, the governor maintained that there was nothing to compare with the exercise.

“He confirmed that the procedures devised and put forward by the census board were meticulously implemented in the field during the headcount exercise.”

According to the Daily Express of 9th May, 1974, nine days before Governor Faruk spoke, and presumably, on the same day as the provisional figures were announced, our Head of State, H.E. General Yakubu Gowon, said this about the census figures:

‘THE FIGURES ARE VERY PROVISIONAL BUT I CAN SAY THAT THE 1973 COUNT WAS PROBABLY THE MOST THOROUGH HEADCOUNT OF HUMAN BEINGS BY HUMAN BEINGS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.’

The near-identity of these two statements strongly suggests that the two leaders have reflected the views of the Supreme Military Council.

IT CLEAR FROM WHAT I HAVE SAID AND FROM THE EULOGIES BY THEIR EXCELLENCIES THAT THE FINAL FIGURES JUST CANNOT BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROVISIONAL FIGURES.

This being so, as sensible people we should make up our minds NOW to cut our loss and minimise our national pains and pangs by appealing to our Head of State and the Supreme Military Council to reject the provisional figures NOW.

The civilian Government did a similar thing in 1962.

But, instead of embarking on another headcount as the civilians did in 1963, we should go back and stick to the 1963 figures; not because they are accurate – of course they are not; but because:

1)            they represent a mutual compromise among the entire people of this country at the time they were produced or concocted;

2)            they had stood us in good stead in the past; and can with necessary expert adjustments to take account of differing rates of growth in our States, and of the phenomenal population growth rate in the City of Lagos, continue to avail us in the future; and

3)            they are, as I have pointed out the LEAST BAD, the LEAST UGLY, and, therefore, the MOST ACCEPTABLE of all our BAD, UGLY and DISPUTABLE CENSUS RESULTS FROM 1931 TO ‘1973.

For two decades – that is during 1931 to 1951 – we did no headcount in Nigeria. By the same token we could afford to postpone another headcount till say twenty years from now. By that time, egalitarianism would have been crystallised among our entire people; inter-ethnic fears and suspicions would have largely disappeared; and practically all Nigerian children and youths would be in various levels of educational institutions. Because of all these, the inducement to demographic malpractices and pillage would have almost fallen to zero; and, even where such malpractices are attempted, it would be easy to detect them by using school population as a check.

It is at that time in the distant future that we should seek to improve on the 1963 figures. This is my fervent plea to our Head of State and the Supreme Military Council; and I believe this is the ardent plea of all right-thinking Nigerians in all parts of our fatherland, as well.

CONSTITUTION MAKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

From a lecture delivered at the University of Lagos on Friday, 24th February, 1967

In many parts of the world, the search for a suitable constitution is a perennial exercise.

Because of the effect for good or evil which the working of a constitution is bound to have on the lives of the entire people of a country, and because of the love of power on the part of various individuals and groups in a society, a disproportionately large number of people always feel called upon and competent to prescribe the requisite formulae for a suitable constitution.

It does not occur to such people that the making of a constitution is a job for experts, and that it requires as much specialised knowledge and skill as the making of a bridge or of a roadworthy motor vehicle. They believe that the only qualifications which they need to have are patriotism, general education, and the urge to power and group partisanship. With the result that, in any country where the search for a new constitution is in progress, there are as many constitutional prescriptions, and as many principles or lack of principles underlying them, as there are articulate group interests. It is my considered opinion that no suitable and satisfactory constitution can be confidently evolved in this haphazard and free-for-all fashion. I have used the word ‘confidently’, advisedly. If a suitable constitution emerged from such a chaotic and inexpert approach, it would be the result of accident pure and simple, not of confident planning and expectation.

Before Bacon put his imprimatur on the method of induction, mankind had depended for everything it did on trial and error and the rule of thumb. But since his time, the tools of observation, empiricism, analysis, classification, synthesis, and generalisation, have been thoroughly forged and perfected, and can be confidently used, in the investigation of any phenomenon, or in the search for solution to any problem, be it in the fields of natural or social sciences.

Mankind has now reached a stage in its development when it will be inexcusable ignorance, plain stupidity, and unpardonable dishonesty on the part of any society or community to adopt an unscientific approach to any of its problems.

I am fully aware that political scientists have been chary of making generalisations. What they call political theories are mere analyses, classifications, and definitions of past and existing political institutions. They have never gone so far as to deduce laws or principles of general validity, which can be applied to new situations by practising politicians, or by those engaged in the task of drawing up a constitution for any given country.

Man which is the central subject of social sciences, it is argued, is unpredictable and imponderable. He does not, for instance, lend himself to the rigid formation and unchangeably fixed behaviour of the solar system.

Well said. But in spite of the egregious and erratic use of his power of choice or of decision, man is subject to and governed by immutable social laws. This is so because the universe, of which the world in which we live forms a part, is a cosmos. In this ordered system, it can be postulated without fear of contradiction that for every specified effect there is a given cause, and that like causes produce like effects, both in the organic and inorganic world of matters as well as in the still unfathomed depth of the human mind.

The law of supply and demand holds good, and economists do not hesitate to declare and insist on such law, in spite of interference and unpredictable frictions which man has consciously or unconsciously, ignorantly or deliberately, brought into play with a view to thwarting the law. We know for a truth that any individual Or group who persistently violates the law of supply and demand, will in long run suffer the dire consequences of such violations.

Similarly, any society which persistently violates political laws or principles – whether such laws are recognised and known or not is beside the point – will not, in the long run, escape the grievous Consequences of its ignorant or deliberate violations.

But political scientists have need to assume a much bolder and more scientific role than political theorists and philosophers have done hitherto. By the careful and correct employment of the inductive method, they should be prepared to make generalisations wherever possible. Undoubtedly, man in his blind caprice and self-interest, may falsify and stultify such generalisations. Even so, it is my considered view that, if the generalisations are validly made, they can only be falsified and stultified in the short run. In the long run, the political principles enunciated will, like the law of supply and demand, be verified and triumphant.

DEFINITIONS:

With these introductory remarks, I will now proceed to set out in as clear and authoritative terms as possible, the definitions and meanings of some operative words. These words are not only in current use, but also, both through ignorance and deliberate distortion, have acquired false meanings and applications. With the result that their precise and true connotations are not generally known and understood.

Whenever the word CONSTITUTION is mentioned, we quickly conjure up in our minds the picture of a special legal document which contains various provisions relating to:

1)            the organs of government, together with their characteristics and the mode of establishing them;

2)            the powers and functions of such organs, their relationship inter se, and with the public at large; and

3)            the enforceable rights and duties of the citizen.

Indeed, Wade and Phillip say that:

‘by a constitution is normally meant a document having a special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and the principal functions of the organs of government of a state and declares the principles governing the operations of those organs.’

But a constitution need not be, and has not always been, in writing. Primitive and illiterate societies have no written constitution or laws; nor did most countries of Africa before the advent of European rule. Up till today, British constitution is only partly written; so is the constitution of New Zealand.

What then is a constitution?

According to the authors of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, constitution is defined as:

1)            ‘The mode in which a state is constituted or organised.

2)            ‘The system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, or body politic is constituted or governed.’

Here, a distinction must be drawn between CONSTITUTION and GOVERNMENT, and between STATE and NATION. Among the members of the general public, CONSTITUTION and STATE are respectively regarded as synonymous with GOVERNMENT and NATION. Strictly speaking, they are not.

GOVERNMENT means:

‘The body of persons charged with the duty of governing a state.’

A cursory comparison between the meanings of CONSTITUTION and GOVERNMENT makes the distinction clear and indubitable. Indeed, the distinction is so sharp that it is erroneous, in serious discussions, to speak of FEDERAL OR UNITARY GOVERNMENT.

A STATE has been defined by Salmond as:

‘an association of human beings established for the attainment of certain ends’.

Keeton’s definition is more explicit that Salmond’s, and distinguishes a state more clearly from other human associations like partnerships, limited liability companies, clubs, etc. It runs as follows:

‘A state is an association of human beings, whose numbers are at least considerable, occupying a defined territory, and united with the appearance of permanence for political ends, for the achievement of which certain governmental institutions have been evolved.’

On the other hand, according to three distinguished authorities, a NATION is defined as:

1)            SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY _ ‘A distinct race or people, characterised by common descent, language, or history, usually organised as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory. ‘

2)            SALMOND – ‘A group of persons who feel that they are distinct from others on grounds of culture, language, and sometimes common ancestry.’

3)            KEETON – ‘A community of persons linked either by their historical development, common speech or common social customs, or several of these criteria, in such a way that such persons would still tend to cohere even if separated under different governments.’

From these definitions of STATE and NATION, four important points emerge.

FIRST: A state may consist of a number of nations – as in the USSR, India, Nigeria, and Switzerland.

SECOND: A nation may be divided into a number of States; as in Ancient Greece, and as is the case with the Ewe-speaking people in Ghana and Togo, the Kurd-speaking people in USSR, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, the Greek-speaking people in modern Greece and Cyprus, and the German-speaking people in Western Germany and Eastern Germany.

THIRD: A nation may be co-extensive with a state; as in Portugal and Italy.

FOURTH: Whilst a nation need not have political ends in order to maintain its cohesion, unity, and corporate existence, a state must. In other words, whilst it is imperative that the elements or objectives for the cohesion and continued corporate existence of a state must be consciously organised and continuously sustained by the members of the state, all that a nation needs for the preservation of its cohesion and corporate continuance are already ingrained at birth, as unconscious powerful tendencies, in the members of the national group, and nurtured by many self-sustaining, cultural ties and sentiments.

It is generally agreed that the phrase DEVELOPING COUNTRY is euphemistic either in current use to distinguish an economically backward and underdeveloped country from an economically developed and advanced one.

The chief common feature of all backward, or underdeveloped, or developing countries is extreme poverty.

For better understanding and near-mathematical accuracy, economists have chosen a more or less arbitrary criterion for identifying backward or developing as well as developed or advanced countries. Their yardstick is the United States of America. I f the income per head of a country falls below one-quarter of the income per head in the USA, then that country is said to be backward, underdeveloped, or developing. It must be emphasised that the phrase has no political import or denotation at all.

Applying this yardstick, and having regard to available national income data of all the countries of the world, it is easy to discern and declare that developing countries are to be found mostly in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Far East. In the face of this, it becomes obvious that there is a very strong nexus between political instability with its accompanying necessity for constitutional changes, and economic backardness and poverty.

Constitution-making ‘is, however, not a process confined to developing countries only. Now and again, some developed countries do give themselves new constitutions: as was, for instance, the case with Japan in 1946, Austria in 1955, and France in 1958.

There are three types of constitution. They are unitary, federal and con federal.

Under a unitary constitution, the supreme legislative power in the state is vested in a single authority. Whereas under a federal constitution, the supreme legislative power in the composite state is shared between the central authority on the one hand, and the regional authorities on the other, all of which are co-ordinate with and independent of one another in the discharge of the functions expressly, or by necessary implication, vested in them by the constitution.

A confederal constitution is easily distinguished from a federal constitution. While the central and regional authorities under a federal constitution are co-ordinate and independent of one another, under a con federal constitution, the central authority is, to a large extent, dependent on the regional authorities. In other words, the central authority is neither co-ordinate with nor independent of the regional authorities. For all practical purposes, it owes its existence to the sufferance of the regional authorities.

A federal and a con federal constitution is invariably a written constitution, for the simple reason that the division of functions between the central and regional authorities which is inevitable, together with the attendant numerous provisions, cannot be left to what Harold Laski has graphically termed as the ‘hazards of human memory.’

As has been noticed, one of the things that a constitution does is to prescribe the organs of government.

There are, however, several forms of government from among which constitution-makers can choose. Some of them, which are still in current use in different parts of the world, are oligarchy, autocracy, tyranny and democracy.

It may be noted, in passing, that all forms of government can be found under two mutually exclusive species of government, namely: monarchical, and republican.

The primary aims and objects of a state are – defence against external aggression, and the maintenance of internal peace, order and security. In modern times, these primary aims have been tremendously extended to include the economic prosperity and social welfare of the people.

FUNDAMENTAL FACTORS

From what we have said, the following FOUR fundamental factors emerge for very careful and serious consideration by all those who are called upon to make a constitution for a developing country, or for any country for that matter, namely:

1)            The composition of the state;

2)            The type of constitution that is suitable;

3)            The aims and objects of the state; and

4)            The form of government.

We will take these four factors one by one, and treat them in the order in which we have stated them.

1. THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE: The first thing to ascertain is whether or not the state consists of more than one nation or linguistic group. This is of extreme importance. Because an error in this regard may lead to a more or less permanent state of friction and disharmony within the state concerned.

Much of the constitutional instability and political upheaval, in different parts of Africa, would be considerably reduced if African leaders took the trouble, or were objective enough, to ascertain and acknowledge the difference between NATION and TRIBE.

From its definition, we will see that the distinctive and inseparable characteristics of a nation are common language, common culture, and sometimes common ancestry. Within the nation there are usually many tribes, each of which speak a common dialect, but all of whom speak the same language which is their mother-tongue, share the same culture, and sometimes claim a common ancestry. These tribes, to borrow the words of KEETON, ‘will tend to cohere even if separated under different governments’; witness the irresistible tendency to cohere on the part of the Greeks in Cyprus and Greece, on the part of the German-speaking people in the two Germanies, and on the part of the Ewe-speaking people in Togo and Ghana.

To classify a NATION as TRIBE is unscientific in the extreme, and is bound to lead to serious-and unpleasant consequences in the process of applying and employing such classification. in the twilight or dimness of such an error, two or more nations will be lumped together and treated as if they possess the same cultural characteristics.

The most manifest and the most easily recognised cultural difference between two nations is language – the mother-tongue. As I said in ‘Thoughts On Nigerian Constitution’, ‘language lies at the base of all human divisions and divergences’. It breeds suspicion, and generates an unconscious overpowering urge for separateness and exclusiveness. Whatever view different classes of people may hold about the authenticity of the story, it is worthy of note that work on the construction of the city and tower of Babel came to an abrupt and permanent end, when ‘the Lord did there confound the language’ of the builders. I maintain that ‘you can unite but you can never succeed in unifying peoples whom language has set distinctly apart from one another’. If you tried, you might appear to succeed in the short run, but the ingrained tendency to cohere was ingrained at birth and self-sustaining identity will eventually overcome any inducement to the contrary.

In other words, whilst, as we have said earlier on, the tendency to cohere was ingrained at birth and self-sustaining in all the individual members, or tribal groups, of the same nation, there is no such inherent tendency in the members of two different nations. In the latter case the tendency to cohere must be consciously planted in the nations concerned, and sedulously nurtured and maintained. In short, in making a constitution, it is absolutely imperative to make a meticulous analysis of the composition of the state concerned, as well as an accurate and scientific classification of the resulting elements.

2. THE TYPE OF CONSTITUTION: In looking for a suitable constitution for a country, only the unitary and federal types need be considered. From all available historical evidence, a con federal constitution is an unrelieved failure. It has never successfully served any state as a permanent constitution. As a temporary expedient, its only record of success was in the United States of America from 1776 to 1786.

In considering which of the remaining two types is suitable, the composition of each state must be taken into strict account. If the state in question is composed of one nation, that is to say, if it is a uni-national or uni-lingual state, the constitution must be unitary. If it is federal, the tendency to cohere among the constituent states will strengthen the central authority at the expense of the regional authorities; with the result that the constitution will remain only federal in name, but unitary in actual fact.

On the other hand, if the members of a state, though belonging to one nation, had for a long period of time, lived as geographically separate and autonomous groups, each group will insist on retaining a large measure of its autonomy. In that case, only a federal constitution will be suitable. This will be more so, if the groups while retaining a common language, had, in the process of their long separation from one another, developed some important cultural divergencies, such as different religions and social ideals. If the state in question is composed of more than one nation, that is if it is bi-national or bi-lingual, multi-national or multi-lingual, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on linguistic basis.

If the constitution is unitary, mutual suspicion and distrust, and the tendency to assert their separate identity, on the part of the different nations or linguistic groups composing the state, will militate against all efforts at unification, however brave and well-meaning these may be. Indeed, the struggle for self-assertion on the part of each nation or linguistic group, may be so violent as to threaten the very unity of the composite state.

Furthermore, if one or more of the nations in the multi-national state had, for a long period of time, lived as geographically separate and autonomous groups, the constitution of the state must, a fortiori, be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on the dual basis of language and separate nationality.

Four principles or law emerge clearly from what I have said under this heading, and I would like to state them. They are:

ONE: If a country is uni-lingual and uni-national, the constitution must be unitary.

TWO: If a country is uni-Iingual or bi-Iingual or multi-lingual, and also consists of communities which, though, belonging to the same nation, had, over a period of years, developed divergent and autonomous nationalities, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on the dual basis of language and separate nationality.

THREE: If a country is bi-lingual or multi-lingual, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on a linguistic basis.

FOUR: Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bi-lingual or multi-lingual or multi-national country must fail, in the long run. I would like to add that I have arrived at these principles after very careful study and analysis of the constitutional evolution of every state in the world. I, therefore, regard the principles as -conclusive, because the method which I have adopted is that of summative induction.

According to John Stuart Mill, induction is:

‘that operation of the mind, by which we infer that what we know to be true in a particular case or cases, will be true in all cases which resemble the former in certain assignable respects’.

More than two thousand years earlier, Aristotle had, described induction as:

‘a passage from individuals to universals’.

It will be seen, therefore, that I have done much more than is required by the rules of induction. I have employed the summative method of induction, because I am aware that I am dealing with human institutions which are very liable to substantial variations, and because it is both possible-and much safer, to employ this method, in the present instance. The phenomena under investigation are not only all of them ascertainable but are also all open to direct study and analysis.

I have set out as fully as possible in Thoughts On Nigerian Constitution the facts from which the principles I have just enunciated have been deduced. And I make bold to declare that these principles will hold good as long as the hearts of the vast majority of human beings continue to be ruled more by passions, emotions and individual wills and self-interests, than by objective reason and the pursuit of generally beneficial common goals. Indeed, these principles will continue to hold good as long as mankind remains divided, as at present, by language, culture and disparate social objectives.

As I have ernphasised again and again on other occasions, it is of exceeding importance for practical politicians and constitution-makers to bear in mind that the more educated the people in a nation become, the more hardened and distinct are their language and culture.

Since, as I have said, these principles are conclusive and inexorable in the long run, it is imperative that, in their own interests, developing countries should adhere to them most religiously. A nation groping more or less in the dark, and striving for bare subsistence cannot afford to depart from laws and principles which are sufficiently verified, and from routes which are well-charted, to embark on experiments which the empirical verdicts of history declare to be utterly ruinous. The strains and stresses which such experiments will generate are bound to worsen, excessively, the already dismal economic and social plight of the country concerned.

3. AIMS AND OBJECTS: As we have seen, an association of human beings, which has no specified aims and objects for keeping its members permanently together, may be a nation, or tribe, or family, but certainly cannot be a state. By definition, therefore, the existence of aims and objects to be pursued is an inseparable attribute of a state.

If the state and the nation are coextensive, the absence of aims and objects will lead to ever-recurrent discontent, instability and public turmoil. The danger of disintegration and fragmentation will also be present, but the tendency to cohere among the various units which compose the nation-state will prevent such disintegration from becoming permanent. In due course of time, a Bismarck or a Garibaldi will appear to weld together and unify the fragmented units, by infusing in them a sense of national purposes and direction.

On the other hand, if the state is multi-national or multi-lingual, the want’ of specified aims and objects of a sufficiently uniting character will lead to permanent disintegration among the nations which constitute the state. This tendency to disintegration can be mitigated and relieved to a great extent, if in the course of a sufficiently long period, the nations concerned have developed strong sentiments for political togetherness. This counter-force would be very much strengthened; if, though the aims and objects are not stated, the members of the multi-national state are aware that greater advantages and benefits are accruable to them in unity than in disintegration.

Any attempt to keep the nations in a multi-national state together, under conditions where the state has no specified aims and objects, will undoubtedly generate discontent, instability, and public disorder, much worse than will be the case in a uni-national state.

It must be emphasised that it is not enough to have aims and objects. Such aims and objects must be of such quality and character as will evoke abiding sense of patriotism and loyalty from the citizens of the state, and must be such as will, in their execution; benefit all the citizens substantially and without exception.

It is common knowledge that no partnership, or club, or human association of any kind, will last for long if its affairs are conducted in such a manner as to benefit only a few of its members. It is true that in contradistinction to a voluntary human association, the state has at its disposal a plentitude of coercive instruments to compel obedience as well as adherence even in the face of the worst possible form of social injustice. But if political history teaches anything at all, it is that, in the long run, the efficacy of coercive instruments, in the face of extensive and persistent social injustice, is completely negative.

We have noted, earlier on, that the primary aims and objects of a state are defence against external aggression, and the maintenance of internal order and security.

These days, for most countries of the world, these aims are irrelevant, and not so fundamental as they used to be.

The faculty and futility of aggression have dawned vividly on all the states of the world, including those of them that are actual and potential aggressors. In spite of South Vietnam, it is obvious that the countries of the world are learning hard, fast, and truly, to live without war. Besides, it is known, from time immemorial, that a large association of human beings, such as is found in a nation-state or multi-national state, is not essential to the maintenance of internal peace and security. In fact, the smaller the unit of state, the easier and more effective is the maintenance of internal order and security.

In any case, the citizens of developing countries dread the secular siege of poverty, with its attendant scourge of ignorance, disease and hunger, more than they do the overt or covert threats of an intending war-like aggressor. Furthermore, most of them have little to lose from internal disorder. And it will, I think, be generally agreed that the more prosperous a state is, and the more equitably and justly distributed its wealth is, the less liable it is to the danger of external aggression or of internal disorder.

It follows, therefore, that in addition to the aforementioned primary aims and objects, a state must have bold and inspiring economic and social objectives which will be pursued in such a manner as to benefit all the citizens justly and substantially. I do not wish to take up the point here as to whether or not it is better for such economic and social objectives to be capitalist or socialist in orientation. It must be admitted, in all honesty, that there are instances where the capitalist or the socialist route has led to poverty and utter ruin for the citizens, and where it has led to greater, and juster distribution of wealth for them. However, after this much has been said and admitted, I would like to state my considered view, categorically, that it is most unsafe for a developing country to rely wholly on the capitalist approach to the accumulation of wealth and its just distribution.

A developing country has a yawning gulf of extreme poverty to bridge and cross before it can start on the long and arduous journey which leads to the delectable goal of a per capita income equal to one-quarter of the per capita income in the United States. This is a formidable task which calls for bold and meticulous planning and fearless execution. But, as we all know, capitalism as a spouse has never taken affectionately to a planning husband.

At any rate, in order to ensure peace, stability and permanent integration among its units, a developing country must declare, in its constitution, economic and social objectives which are bold, inspiring, and variegated, and which are telescoped into a shorter period of time than any developed country will care to attempt. All that we have said, thus far, under this head would appear to savour too much of real-politik. We are certainly not forgetful of the teaching that ‘man does not live by bread alone’, which is the same as saying that the non-material aspect of the aims and objects of a state is equally important.

If we may repeat the analogy, which we have made before, in another form, we will assert that no partnership, or human association of any kind whatsoever, will last for long if the officers in charge are in the habit of invading and trampling on the rights of other members and subjecting them to indignity or inhuman treatment.

Every member of any human association has rights, intangible though they are, which are sacred and inalienable, and which must be protected against any invasion, at all costs. In a state: such rights are termed fundamental human rights. In order to discharge one of its primary functions of maintaining internal order and security, and to ensure its own solidarity and survival, every state must recognise, and guarantee to al1 its citizens, the fundamental rights of man.

In some developed countries, these rights are recognised as a result of immemorial customs, and the Courts scrupulously enforce them as such.

Experience, however, has shown that in developing countries, those rights must be fully set out and entrenched in a written constitution, if they are to have any chance at all of due recognition and enforcement. But experience has also shown that, where, in any country whether developed or developing, these rights have not been duly recognised, protected and enforced, people have resorted to self-redress, leading to large-scale violence, bloodshed, and killing.

It is, therefore, of exceeding importance that in a developing country, fundamental human rights should be entrenched in the constitution, and provisions for their inviolable protection and impartial enforcement should also be clearly set out and entrenched.

4. FORM OF GOVERNMENT: Mankind, in its long and tedious progression since the beginning of recorded history, has tried various forms of government such as theocracy, gerontocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, tyranny, ochlocracy, democracy, etc. From al1 available historical evidence, however it is clear that the best of them all is democracy. This proposition is substantiated by the fact that even those who practise autocracy, tyranny, or oligarchy, are so Conscious of the inferiority of this form of government that they give it the label of democracy, in order to pass it off, to their fellow-citizens and foreign observers, as the ideal.

The inherent characteristic of democracy, which distinguishes it from any other form of government, is that it posits the ultimate principle that political power or sovereignty belongs to the entire people of a state rather than to the few or the one, and that it is the entire people of the state who are entitled to exercise this power for their own benefit.

No country in the world, from antiquity to the present day, has attained to this ideal of direct democracy. The Greek city-state of antiquity, because of its small size, went very close to attaining the ideal. In nine of the Swiss cantons, direct democracy is practised to the extent only that a referendum is mandatory for all legislation. The advent of nation-states and multi nation-states has made it much more difficult to practise anything resembling the democracy of the Swiss cantons or that of ancient Greece.

But in its efforts towards the attainment of the ideal, mankind has evolved a representative or indirect democracy. In this form of democracy the adult members of the state periodically elect some persons from among themselves who are charged with responsibility for the making and execution of laws for the state, and for its general day-to-day administration.

Various methods have been devised for the practice of representative democracy. In some countries, it is permissible for the representatives to be elected by a relative rather than an absolute majority of votes; in some others the constitution prescribes that the representatives must have an absolute majority of votes; and in yet some other countries, the method adopted is such as to ensure that the representatives consist of practically all the shades of political opinion in the state. Again, in some countries the legislative representatives on the one hand, and the executive representatives on the other, are separately elected by and responsible to the people; but in others it is only the legislative representatives that are elected by and responsible to the people, whilst the members of the executive are chosen from among, and responsible to, the legislative representatives.

It is clear from the foregoing that in order that the persons elected by what method so ever, may be regarded as the accredited representatives of the adult members of the state, the electors must be allowed to exercise their right of choice without let or hindrance. They should not be intimidated or coerced into making an unwanted choice; and they should be allowed to make their choice in secret so as not to be subjected to any fear in casting their votes, and not to be exposed to hatred and hostility from those who have not been favoured by their votes.

In devising its method of representative democracy, every state should bear certain postulates in mind.

1)            ‘Every person has the right to freedom and to the unfolding of his personality.’

2)            Every person has the right to hold, express, and canvass any opinion he likes.

3)            All persons are equal in the eye of the law, and are therefore entitled to equality in the enjoyment of the rights of personal liberty, of association, and of free movement.

4) Every adult person is entitled to have a say in the manner in which the affairs of his country are being or should be conducted.

The rationale for these postulates can be demonstrated. But there is neither time nor space to do so here.

Nevertheless, I would like to stress that the acceptance and observance of these postulates automatically rule out the legitimacy of the so-called one-party system. Because of heredity, upbringing and other factors, there are scarcely two men, in any community, exactly: alike in their thinking, opinions, and affections. It is, therefore, all that the people in a state can do to form themselves into different political associations or parties each of which in Burke’s words is:

‘united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle upon which they are agreed’.

In other words, one of the quintessences of democracy is a multi-party system. It is under such a system that the individuals are able to exercise their right of association, their right to the unfolding of their peculiar personalities, and their right to hold, express, and canvass any opinions they like.

It must be proclaimed from the house-tops, therefore, for all to hear, that democracy and the one-party system are absolutely antithetic. This is so, because under the one-party system, the citizens are compelled, by a process of coercive regimentation of thoughts and opinions, to belong to one political association. In the alternative, they are coerced to refrain either from holding any political opinions at all, or from expressing and canvassing any such opinions.

Those who are engaged in constitution-making, in any country, should be reminded that one of the lessons, which political history has tirelessly inculcated, is that any form of government other than democracy is doomed to failure and disaster, and can only be sustained, in the short time, by fraud, intimidation, and force.

CLOSING REMARKS:

‘Science’, it is truly said, ‘demands general laws by the aid of which we can reach exact results.’

Here in Nigeria, as in most of the developing countries, we are now busy making an earnest search for a suitable constitution. In order that our search may be fruitful, those of us who ate taking part in it will do well to divest ourselves of irrational emotions, personal self-interests, and sectional prejudices and affections. Positively, we would be wise, and our efforts would be blessed, if; in the course of this momentous search, we adopt, most strictly, a scientific approach such as I have outlined and advocated in this lecture, and follow faithfully the principles which I have enunciated. For, it is only by so doing that we can reach exact results. Indeed, it is only by so doing that we can fashion a constitution which will, assuredly, prove satisfactory to our people, both in the short and long term, and make our country a living practical exemplar for other developing countries in search of suitable constitution.

THE FINANCING OF THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ECONOMY OF THE NATION

Full text of a lecture delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Federal Commissioner for Finance, under the joint auspices of the Geographical Society and the Federalist Society of Nigeria at the University of Ibadan on 16th May, 1970

The Nigerian civil war was inevitable. But whilst its inevitability was clear to Ojukwu as far back as September 1966, it did not appear to have dawned on the Federal Military Government until towards the end of April J967. There were forebodings, however – but only forebodings which prompted the Federal Military Government, towards the end of 1966, to begin to make contingent military preparations for an armed showdown, which it continued to pray might never happen.

In the face of the facts so far available, Aburi can now be seen, in retrospect, as a demonstration of the contrary states of the minds of both General Gowon and Mr. Ojukwu. Gowon wanted..peace by all means, and went to the furthest limit compatible with Nigerian unity, in his endeavour to win it at Aburi. On the other hand, Ojukwu was all out for secession, and was already preparing secretly but hard for war which he knew was the historical concomitant of any act of secession. But he needed more time for his preparations, and a few more constitutional powers for the furtherance of his designs under the cloak of legality. At Aburi, he played and manoeuvred adored for both, and got them. Like Chamberlain and Daladier at Munich in 1938, the Commander-in-Chief and his loyal colleagues ‘Were lulled into a sense of false security, so much so that when they returned from Aburi, they believed – and most of us shared their belief that they had brought home with them ‘peace in our time’.

This illusion did not last; but it lingered long enough to give Ojukwu more time to strengthen and consolidate his military preparations. During the first two weeks of May 1967, we were still conscientiously and frantically looking for a formula that would preclude a violent solution to our problems. Even at the outbreak of war in July 1967, our antecedent state of mind, our ardent and consuming desire for peace did not permit us to see that a civil war had actually come upon us. We persuaded ourselves to believe and proclaim that what we had embarked upon was in the nature of police operations. All of which go to show that we never really wanted war, that we did all in our power to “avert it, and that even when it was finally forced upon us by the remorseless logic of the events subtly contrived and cleverly manipulated by Ojukwu, we failed to recognise it at the first encounter.

Consequently, at the outbreak of the civil war on 6th July, 1967, apart from lack of adequate military preparedness on our part, the finances of the federation were neither mobilised nor deployed on proper war footing, let alone for the long, protracted, and expensive military campaign we had had to conduct.

In actual fact, the finances of the country were, at that point in time, differently orientated. THE 1962/68 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN was running its last lap; and THE GUIDEPOSTS FOR THE SECOND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN had been formulated, accepted, and published. So that when the reality of the situation finally dawned upon the Federal Military Government, it became imperative to change course drastically, and gear our resources, which for the five preceding years had been organised and directed for development purposes, to the unproductive, destructive, and unpredictable ends of war.

The Nigerian civil war saw altogether three Budgets. The first one was introduced on 19th October, 1967, and the other two were for 1968/69 and 1969/70. The same fundamental objectives and the same basic principles governed and underlay the three Budgets; and the differences between them consisted only in tile fiscal and monetary measures which, from year to year, were considered necessary for effectively carrying out the declared objectives and principles.

The two fundamental objectives to which the Federal Military Government committed itself from the very beginning of the civil war are well known. They are: to win the war, and to win the peace that will follow. The financial resources of the country were to be mobilised and deployed for the accomplishment of both objectives.

But, first and foremost, the rebellion must be decisively crushed, and the unity and territorial integrity of Nigeria preserved. It was an overriding policy of Government that nothing should be spared to attain this objective. Accordingly, in the first year of war up to the end of 1967, we spent £33.5 million to provide armaments, food, uniforms, transportation, and other necessities of war. And in the second and third years up to the end of January 1970, we spent £98 million and £170 million respectively, for the same purposes.”

At the same time, it was a cardinal policy of the Federal Military Government that after the war, no time should be lost in resettling those who had been displaced from their homes and places of permanent residence, in rehabilitating troops and civilians where necessary, in reconstructing damaged infrastructure and other public installations, and in developing the country as a whole, in order to make up for lost grounds, and progress forgone. It was important and crucial to win the war. But it is equally important and crucial, if not more so, to win the peace. For if we lost the peace, we would have fought the war in vain, and our sacrifices would have been a colossal and criminal waste. It was no doubt clear to everyone, including every member of the Federal Military Government, that one of the potent means of winning the peace was to correct, drastically, the economic and social ills – that is, abject poverty, preventable diseases, squalor, and ignorance which. had, in the past, plagued, and, for the present, continue to torment this country, without immediate respite. It is with these considerations in mind that, even in the midst of war and its attendant sufferings and deaths, the Federal Military Government began to plan confidently for the future, with special emphasis on the period immediately following the cessation of hostilities. The plan, I am gratified to say, is now in its final stages of preparation; but its full cost is still to be calculated. Nonetheless, during the war, it was envisaged that the country would require for rehabilitation, reconstruction, and development, a record capital investment of the order of £ 1,500 million from both the public and private sectors, within five years after the war.

The financing of the Nigerian civil war should, therefore, be understood not just as connoting the defraying of the expenses of the immediate, narrow, and negative object of winning the war alone, but as embracing the conservation of our financial health to enable us to begin to fulfil immediately after the end of the war, the ultimate, positive, and permanent object of winning the peace. It is on the basis of-this wider connotation that we will now proceed to recount the principles and some of the measures which we adopted in financing the Nigerian civil war.

Soon after the outbreak of war, three phenomena manifested themselves. First, in the traditional race between approved estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, the latter began to run rapidly ahead of the former which, at the same time, was fast losing the tempo originally set for it. Second; the pressure on our foreign exchange reserve also began to mount inexorably, at an unprecedented and unpredictable rate, in the face of considerably reduced exports. Third, the financial requirements of the armed forces were only amenable to conjectural forecasts. There are far too many imponderables to cope with in war. Apart from the uncertainty of duration, and apart from the crazy vagaries of the unorthodox market for arms and ammunition in which we were obliged to operate in the early stages of the war, the amount of money required, at any given time, depended largely on our fortunes or misfortunes in the fields of battle, which fortunes or misfortunes were not in our exclusive control.

In the face of these phenomena, three principles dictated themselves as deserving constant attention and application whatever the civil war’s duration. They are:

1)            to economise our financial resources;

2)            to raise additional revenue; and

3)            to save our foreign exchange reserve from being run down to a dangerous level, thereby avoiding balance of payments difficulties, and preserving the strength of the Nigerian £.

In any situation similar to the one in which we found ourselves, where recurrent revenue trails behind fleet-footed expenditure, the obvious first line of attack is to economise, and maximise available resources. Unless this was done, and done with Draconic firmness, it would be futile to raise additional revenue; and any claim to prudent financial management would be sheer reference.

Throughout the war we did our very best to economise. Ministries, other than those of Defence and Internal Affairs, were enjoined to make I per cent savings in their approved estimates of expenditure for 1967/68; and, to their-credit, they made genuine efforts to comply. For the succeeding years, we endeavoured to keep all the Ministries concerned to the level of their 1967/68 appropriations minus 1 per cent thereof. At the same time, all capital projects, in respect of which the Federal Military Government had not irrevocably committed itself, were postponed indefinitely. As time went on, the Federal Military Government accepted firm and definite guidelines for observance by all its Ministries and Agencies. For the duration, applications for additional expenditure were to be entertained only in respect of the following in the order in which 1 now state them:

1)            the conduct of the war including war publicity;

2)            assistance to States;

3)            agriculture; and

4)            roads.

Those who are familiar with such matters will readily agree, however, that guidelines and measures for economy are more easily laid down than enforced. But we did our best in the Federal Ministry of Finance to enforce compliance. And in this and other connections, our motto always was and still is: WOE UNTO YOU WHEN ALL MINISTRIES SHALL SPEAK IN PRAISE OF YOU.

At the outbreak of the civil war, the areas of fiscal and monetary operations open to us had diminished. We no longer had jurisdiction over individual income tax; internal revenue as well as foreign exchange earnings from petroleum and agricultural export products from the former Eastern Region had been far removed from our reach. But we strove to make the most of what remained, and explored new avenues for raising funds.

In the realm of direct taxation, the only victims left are incorporated companies. We had to approach them with circumspection, lest we kill the geese that laid the golden eggs: But we had no alternative but to make the geese produce as many more golden eggs as they could be safely made to lay.

We introduced capital gains tax at a modest rate of 20 per cent. We imposed terminal dues on all ships evacuating mineral oil from our ports. This is a new levy from which, when it comes into actual operation, we expect an annual revenue of £5 million. In our search for more revenue, we discovered that some companies, especially those engaged in oil distribution, were in the habit of declaring losses on their operations year in year out, in the face of huge trading turnovers, and in spite of the continuous competitive efforts among them to expand in different parts of the country. It is well known that oil motor tankers use our roads very heavily.

But we were astonished that their owners gave comparatively very little in return. It became necessary, therefore, to amend the Income Tax Decree to empower the Federal Board of Inland Revenue to impose Turnover Tax on the volume of trade of a Company whether or not profits are recorded by that company for the year in question. Apart from bringing in some revenue, this innovation is bound to reduce the propensity to render a distorted account of profit and loss. The once-for-all-levy of tax on the profits of certain categories of pioneer companies, which brought in £1.2 million in 1968/69 was more in the nature of interest-free compulsory loan from the companies concerned than tax, since, in consideration of the amount thus paid by them, their tax holiday was extended by one year.

The super tax was introduced in order to raise more revenue from incorporated companies without undue hardship on marginal enterprises. If we raised the rate of companies income tax to 50 per cent, the marginal companies might go completely under, and our immediate object of raising more revenue might thereby be defeated. But by limiting the extra burden on companies whose taxable profits exceed whichever is the greater of:

1. a) £5,000 for a year of assessment, or
2. b) 15 per cent of the company’s issued and paid-up capital,

we succeeded in extracting from this source only what the traffic could bear. In 1968 the super tax was a flat rate of 2/- in the £. But in 1969, we made the rate progressive from 2/- to 51-in the £. In 1968/69 and 1969170 respectively, we collected £ 1.6 million and £2.4 million from this source, and we expect to realise about £3 million in the current financial year.

It is not correct, as two recent commentators had made it appear, that I undertook, at any time, to limit the operation of the super tax to the duration of the war. At no time did I make any such promise. On the contrary, from its introduction, the super tax was intended to be a permanent feature of our fiscal policy. The only alternative to this policy will be to introduce a general increase in company income tax. This, however, must be ruled out, at least for the time being, for the reason which I previously gave.

Indirect taxation is by nature a prolific, convenient, and less painful source of revenue. The measures introduced in this realm, during the war, are too numerous to mention. Suffice it, therefore, for me to say that we exploited this source to the fullest extent compatible with economy and the monetary policy adopted by the Government.

Since our recurrent revenue could not meet our recurrent expenditure, we had to resort to three different forms of short-term borrowing. They are: the Treasury Bills, the Treasury Certificates, and the Ways and Means Advances which, by law, had to be retired at the end of the fiscal year. The Treasury Certificates were a war-time device, and are of 24-month maturity, as against Treasury Bills which are of 3-month duration only. Treasury Certificates were introduced in order, as we had first thought to obviate the necessity of raising the level of Treasury Bills beyond 8.5 per cent of the estimated Federal revenue. We had hoped, at the same time, that we would not have to depend very much on this new fiscal weapon. But subsequent events did not only necessitate our having to raise the level of Treasury Bills to 1.50 per cent of the aggregate revenues of Federal and State Governments, but also compelled us to lean more heavily on Treasury Certificates than we had previously contemplated.

I would like to remark, at this juncture, that by resorting frequently to Treasury Bills, Treasury Certificates, and Ways and Means Advances as we did during the war, we knew that we were, pure and simple, pursuing the slippery path of inflation. But having reached the end of our revenue-raising tether, there was no other path open to us. In other words, we felt ourselves irresistibly compelled to tread this path, determined, however, to dig our toes into the ground after every completed step, and to do everything possible to ensure that the journey, though difficult was safe. We had good luck on our side. The bulk of the Treasury Bills and Certificates issued up to the end of the war that is £240.3 million out of a total of £253 million was taken up by the Commercial Banks and the rest of the private sector. Though our Compulsory Savings Scheme was not as successful as we had envisaged, yet it must have gone some way to help to ease the pressure of inflation. So also were the effects of our various tax measures; and of voluntary savings on the part of many Nigerians, including the men and women of the Armed Forces. Above all, we deliberately encouraged the output of more goods. Of its own volition, the Federal Ministry of Finance initiated the grant of £.5 million annually to the States for agricultural development. We could have given more if asked, and if a suitable formula for its allocation among them had been agreed to by the States. The net result of all these measures is that the Consumer Price Index, with an increase of approximately 6 percent over the 1966 level, has not happily, reflected the full increase in the volume of money put into circulation since 1967.

Throughout the war we were extremely anxious to steer clear of balance of payments difficulties. We had no doubt that if we were faced with any such difficulties, we would have been subjected to unbearable humiliation and embarrassment. The supporters of Ojukwu, some of whom were very powerful and dominant in international finance, would have been too happy to seize the opportunity of such a financial crisis to subdue us, or, at least, to make things extremely difficult for us. They would certainly have exploited the situation to drive a hard bargain on behalf of the rebels. We, therefore, made up our minds to conduct our financial affairs in such a manner as to preclude our having to have recourse to the International Monetary Fund for anything, even for our Automatic Drawing Rights. It is not that the International Monetary Fund would not have been sympathetic. The important point which weighed on our minds was that the stringent and constraining circumstances antecedent to such a recourse would have dealt a shattering blow to our morale and self-confidence, and the country might, as a result, suffer diplomatic defeat on a number of fronts. So, we resolved to avoid this ugly eventuality; and the economy responded, beautifully and gratifyingly, to our desire.

In pursuance of the policy of conserving our foreign exchange reserve, we had had to cut down heavily on our imports. The importation of certain items of luxury goods was completely banned, and so was that of many items of necessaries which we were satisfied could be produced locally. Items of goods which were considered necessary, but which were not being produced locally were allowed to be imported, either without licence or under licence. For the purposes of the latter, a high-powered Import Quota Allocation Committee of officials was set up to ensure that licences were not issued in excess of freely available foreign exchange reserve minus the amount required for the purchase of military hardware.

Before the war, Commercial Banks kept and disposed of their foreign exchange earnings as they wished. Furthermore, the world was divided Into Scheduled and Non-scheduled Areas; and it was stipulated that transfer of foreign exchange to Scheduled areas did not require the approval of the Exchange Control Officer. These arrangements created dangerous loopholes, which, whatever might be the rationale or justification for their adoption in the past, should not be tolerated under war-time conditions, and even under conditions of great need for rapid development. In order, therefore, to prevent leakages through these loopholes, and to have effective control of all the foreign exchange earned on all transactions emanating from Nigeria, we directed the Commercial Banks, operating in the country, to surrender all their foreign exchange earnings to the Central Bank. At the same time, we abolished the unnecessary distinction between Scheduled and Non-Scheduled territories of the world, so that any transaction in foreign exchange would have to have the approval of our Exchange Control Officer.

There are other avenues of possible leakage of foreign exchange which we had had to close. Only one of them need be mentioned. As you know, there were a good number of companies in Nigeria which were only tiny overseas tentacles of giant global octopuses. Their foreign exchange accounts, in so far as they related to Nigeria, were not easy to ascertain. We could only rely on their good faith, and their word of honour, which we never doubted, for whatever figures they gave us. But we thought it would be much neater and more businesslike to put this state of affairs beyond the intangible pale of mutual good faith, and place it within the ambit of direct and independent arithmetical identification by our own officials. Accordingly, we amended the law to require all companies, operating in the country, to be incorporated under our laws. In this way, every aspect of their operations, including foreign exchange transactions, would be Nigerianised, and would thus become distinguishable from those of their parent companies abroad.

In short, we did all that appeared to us to be desirable and advisable to conserve our foreign exchange reserve, by forbidding its use on unnecessaries, or without our specific authorisation. This, it must be admitted, was at best a negative approach to our foreign exchange problem. The positive approach, to which we also paid a great deal of attention, was to earn more foreign exchange by the exportation of goods from Nigeria. But with the control, disorganisation, or disturbance by the rebels of the oil-producing areas in the Eastern States, and with the non-production of agricultural export produce by farmers in these States, it was not easy to earn as much as we could from exports. Besides, though we still had the export products in the rest of the country at our disposal, the dislocation of railway transportation constituted a serious obstacle to the movement of goods from the northern parts of the country to the ports. In this connection, the incessant wrangling between the Agencies concerned with the evacuation, sale, and port-handling of our produce only helped to complicate our problems. It became necessary, therefore, to appoint a high-powered Produce Evacuation Commissioner. This Commissioner and his assistant did their work with commendable industry and efficiency, and, as a direct result of their efforts, our foreign exchange earnings increased.

Another obstacle, however, reared its head, but it was swiftly nipped in the bud. For many years past, Marketing Board operations throughout the country were financed by a consortium of banks. But in 1968, for reasons which we do not need to go into here now, they refused to provide cash advances for the Northern Marketing Board and for the newly established South-Eastern State Marketing Board. In the result, these two Marketing Boards were unable to operate and make purchases. Producers in the North were distressed, those in the South-Eastern States were wondering what sort of Nigeria they had been liberated into, and the country was losing foreign exchange. In the circumstances, we were obliged to amend the Central Bank Act to authorise the Central Bank to make direct advances to the Marketing Boards for produce purchases. In the result, the cessation or slowing-down in the purchases of export crops in the Northern and South-Eastern States, which had been threatened, was promptly eliminated, and a further increase in foreign exchange earnings, due to the exportation of produce from the newly liberated South-Eastern State, accrued.

The devaluation of the Sterling in 1967 made a substantial inroad into our foreign exchange reserve. But it could have brought real disaster upon us, if we had followed suit and devalued the £N. And we might have been stampeded into following suit, if we had not done a detailed and rigorous exercise in anticipation. The campaign, at the time, you will remember, was just too much. The Financial Times in its issue of our painful experience, we sought to secure from the list of countries which, according to it, were certain to devalue. And if memory serves, of all the countries, listed on its front page, it was Nigeria alone which falsified that paper’s forecast. I will tell, briefly, the story of how it happened. You will recall that, from the middle of 1967 or earlier, there were persistent speculations that the Sterling might be devalued. There were equally persistent denials by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was going to be any devaluation. In view of these persistent speculations, and of the equally persistent official denials, it occurred to me that anything might happen, and we might wake up one morning – as was indeed the case – only to hear that the £S had been devalued. Accordingly, I directed that the research Section of the Central Bank, in collaboration with the officials of my Ministry, should put up to me a detailed memorandum on the implications for the Nigerian economy, if the Sterling were to be devalued. By 16th August, 1967, the memorandum was ready. After a careful study of the paper, and an extensive discussion of it with those concerned, 1 came to the tentative conclusion, as far back as September, 1967, that if Britain devalued the Sterling, we would not necessarily need to devalue our own currency. Consequently, when Britain actually devalued its currency, unilaterally and without consultation with the members of the Sterling Group, on 18th November, 1967, I already had clear in my mind what the implications of this action would be for the Nigerian economy, and also what the effects of devaluation or non-devaluation of the £N to the country’s economy would also be. Nonetheless, I quickly arranged a meeting with my officials and the Governor of the Central Bank to argue the matter all over again. Powerful arguments were marshalled for and against the devaluation of the £N. But, in the end, we decided not to devalue; and whatever might have been the theoretical arguments to the contrary, subsequent events have shown that we were wise not to have devalued in slavish sympathy with Sterling devaluation.

In this connection, I would like to observe, in passing, that though the requirements of politics and the realities of economics do not always mix, yet, even if it had been wise for us to devalue, the unilateral manner in which Britain called the tune would have been regarded as such an affront to our independence and sovereignty as to make me want to refuse to dance to that tune.

As I said before, we lost substantially as a result of the Sterling devaluation, and would have lost much more if we had devalued. We could ill-afford any loss – let alone a substantial loss – of foreign exchange, in the prevailing circumstances. But this was the risk we took as a member of the Sterling Group. Howbeit, it was a risk we did not want to continue to take. Yet, after a careful consideration, we came to the view that it would not be prudent for us to pull out of the Sterling community. In order, therefore, to avoid a repetition of our painful experience, we sought to secure from the British Government a guarantee against a recurrence – that is, against loss, in the event of another devaluation of the British £. It must be said to the credit of the British Government that the guarantee which we sought was readily given. The same thing goes for other countries, similarly circumstanced as ourselves, within the Sterling community. In other words, we are now fully insured against loss, in the event of a future devaluation of the Sterling.

As a result of all these measures, we were able to provide, on our own, £230.8 million in local currency, and £70.8 million in foreign exchange, to finance the civil war. We were also able, as a result, to survive the strains, the stresses, and the exigencies of the war, without blemish to our national honour and pride, and without any corrosion of our sovereignty and self-confidence. Furthermore, by being compelled to mobilise and deploy the financial resources of the country to meet the ineluctable demands of war, we were able to discover – this much is revealed by the facts and figures which I have given in the course of this lecture – that the capacity of Nigeria for economic growth and self-reliance is enormous.

My officials and I have been commended for the prudent manner in which we had managed the finances of the country during the war. It would be hypocritical for me to say that we do not deserve some praise. But I think it is to our great and beloved country that ‘all glory, laud, and honour’ should go, for its expansive and fascinating manageability. No one in this country could have predicted that Nigeria could go through this kind of war without being heavily indebted financially to anyone outside Nigeria, and, at the same time, emerge at the end of it all as a most virile and buoyant economy. We had successfully weathered the storms of one of the worst civil wars in history, and we are now fortified by our war-time practical experiences to meet the multifarious and intricate challenges of peace, including the rapid development of our country. In other words, we are in a position today to say truthfully that we have fulfilled the first of our two objectives by winning the war, and that we are properly equipped and sufficiently strong financially to fulfil our second objective of winning the peace.

It would be erroneous to regard the sum of £300 million as representing the total and only cost of the civil war to Nigeria. This figure is no more than the calculable and visible cost of the war.  There are other costs: some are hidden; some are incalculable; others are waiting to be calculated by diligent economists, econometricians, and statisticians.

In the early part of this lecture, I spoke of lost grounds and progress foregone. The average growth rate of our GDP (excluding oil), during the period of 1958/5.9 to 1966/67, is 6.6 per cent. Dr. John D. Letiche, Professor of International Economics at the University of California, in the United States, assuming a growth rate of 5 per cent for our GDP, opined in September 1968, eighteen months before the end of the war, that, because of the civil war, Nigeria ‘has lost income foregone of a minimum of$400 million … ‘This must have since doubled to about £286 million. The cost of infrastructure, public and private properties, damaged and destroyed, during and because of the war, has not yet been fully calculated. But it will be generally agreed that this must run into several millions of £N. And, of course, we all know that the cost of the civil war, in terms of human sufferings, and of human lives lost, is incalculable. I now turn to the second part of this lecture: the implications for the future economy of the nation of financing the Nigerian civil war.

I take it that we all agree that the civil war, like any war at all for that matter, could not have been fought for any length of time, let alone victoriously after a protracted campaign, without adequate funds. This being so, I would like to state that financing the Nigerian civil war – that is, making it possible for us to wage the war as we did – has left us with bad and good legacies which can have far-reaching implications for the future economy of the nation. I propose to deal with six of such implications.

FIRST: Because of the protraction and continuous escalation of the war, Nigeria is now left with a large army – about twenty times its pre-war size – which poses a serious dilemma for the economy. If we continue to keep them at the present strength, the bulk of our resources would have to be diverted for their maintenance, to the prejudice of the economy and of the masses of our people. On the other hand, if we demobilised a large number of them immediately, without their simultaneous absorption into alternative employments, our highways and alleyways would, of a certainty, be infested by hungry, discontented, and disillusioned youths who might be tempted to commit violent crimes, again to the prejudice of the economy and of the masses of our people.

SECOND: Today, most of our hospitals as well as many of our homes are filled with the maimed and the wounded of the war. For many years to come, they will, quite properly, remain an unreciprocated charge on the economy. In other words, they will remain an inevitable addition to the country’s population of non-producers who must be fed, housed, clad, and generally cared for at public expense.

THIRD: Extensive damage and destruction to public and private properties had been caused, in certain parts of the country, as a result of the war. All these will have to be made good and restored with new resources which would otherwise have been utilised for new and additional developments.

FOURTH: I did speak before of the crazy vagaries of the unorthodox market for arms and ammunition in which we were obliged to operate in the early stages of the war. This is putting it mildly and politely. In all its aspects, war is very bad business; and the unorthodox ,market for military equipment is the worst and the most sordid black market conceivable. It was abundantly clear to us that, if our proposed Iron and Steel Complex had been in production, we would have been able to produce all the small arms and ammunition needed by us, at the Nigeria Defence Industries. Partly because of the state of mind into which it was thrown by the sharp practices of arms racketeers, the Federal Military Government gave a big fillip to the negotiation for establishing an Iron and Steel Complex for Nigeria; and if all goes well, the Complex should be in production by about 1974 or 1975. All of us know what this means for the future economy of our country, especially if petro-chemical industry is established in the country, simultaneously. In concrete terms, it means self-sufficiency in practically all consumer durables; it means the local production of a good number of capital goods; and it also ipso facto means considerable savings and increase in our foreign exchange reserve.

FIFTH: The exigencies of the war did well to shock us out of our traditional complacencies, and to compel us to make a clean break with the injudicious and injurious economic policies of the

past, and chart for ourselves a new path of financial prudence. Practically, all the important measures introduced by us during the war testify to the validity of this assertion. The selective restrictions on imports and the attendant switch to import-substituting goods; the sealing of wasteful loopholes in our foreign exchange transactions and earnings, including the centralisation in the hands of the Central Bank of all foreign exchange receipts emanating from Nigeria; the financing of the Marketing Boards by the Central Bank with consequent automatic advantages to the Government and Marketing Boards alike, in additional revenue for the former and lower rate of interest, coupled with assured source of finance, for the latter, the introduction of companies super tax and payment of terminal dues – all these and more are concrete evidence of what we had done to arrest the unhealthy trends of the past, and are accurate pointers to what can be done in the future to make Nigeria a free, self-reliant, and prosperous economy.

SIXTH: The financing of the civil war has enabled us to discover that Nigeria possesses an economic resilience and expansiveness which we did not sufficiently notice before. In this connection, I would like to emphasise that this resilience, and this expansiveness, was by no means accidental.

All the requisite material and manpower resources for the early attainment of economic greatness have always been available in abundance, and are only waiting to be conscientiously recognised, mobilised, and deployed. Potentially, Nigeria is a giant economy capable, under prudent and competent guidance, of making giant strides. All those who are concerned with making plans for her forward motion must recognise this important fact, lest, as in the past, they hinder her natural velocity. There are classical instances of inadvertent hindrances in the past. The 1962/68 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN assumed a growth rate of 4 per cent. The GUIDEPOSTS FOR SECOND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN which was published in June 1966 assumed a growth rate of 6 per cent for 1968/73. In paragraph 10 of the GUIDEPOSTS, the following revealing passage occurs: ‘If the 4 per cent minimum growth rate per annum assumed under the current plan is realised, the GDP will amount of about £1,304 million in 1967/68. During the period 1968/69 to 1972/73 it will be assumed that the GDP will more resista?t in t~eir operations, than any armed rebellion. They grow at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, bringing it to a level of            £ 1,744 million at the end of the next Plan period. ‘ are the enemies which must now be crushed, and crushed ruthlessly. Contrary to the plans and prognostications of experts, there are only two ob~tacles that I can see to the early conquest economy actually grew at an average rate of 6.6 per cent during these monstrous enemies, and hence to the rapid economic and period of 1959/67, and the GDP in 1966/67 stood at £ 1 ,605 millio~, socl~1 tra~sfor~ation of Nigeria. They are: lack of sufficient number as contrasted with £1,304 million and £1,744 million forecast for It of Nigerians with the requisite expertise to plan and execute our  for 1967/68 and 1972/73 respectively development programme, an<tlaok of sufficient resources to defray

It is clear, therefore, that it is not Nigeria that needs to be big                     the foreign exchange elements of any bold and ambitious plan that

economically. She is, potentially, an economic giant already. It is                               we may make. As to what we have to do to overcome these obstacles

we, her sons and daughters, that have need to enlarge our outlook                        there can be no dispute or equivocation. We must: ‘

and thinking, and widen the scope of our planning, to match her                              I) in the immediate present, hire the required know-how from

natural gianthood.                                           abroad, and, as a long-term policy, after the fashion ofMeiji

In ordinary justice to her size and potentialities, therefore, it is                 Tenno, .the. great Japanese Emperor and inspirer of the

imperative that we should think and plan big for Nigeria. But even                           modernisation of Japan, send our boys and girls, our men

the sheer gargantuan nature of our problems demands big and                                and women, to any part of the world where they can acquire

massive approach.                                          the necessary know-how and expertise; and

All over the place, we talk about winning the peace. Some think .                             2) accumulate enough foreign exchange resources on our own

that peace can be won by ‘de-biafranising’ the Ibos; others think                             supplemented with such external aid as friendl;                ,

!                                              that the way to peace is to create more States in order that some of                       ~ovemments.and sympathetic foreign institutions may be

the citizens of the new States might become Ministers,                                disposed to give us, to pay for the importation of foreign

,                               Commissioners, Judges, Permanent Secretaries, Board Members,                           .know-how, expertise, and capital goods.

etc.; others still believe that peace can only be secured by keeping                          DUring the war, w,e had to plan rigorously and think big, to survive

the army in power for many more years; and so on, and so forth. I                           as we have done, Without any blemish on our national honour and

offer no comments here on these and other suchlike lines of thinking.                 self-respect. The momentous challenges of peace, and the         ~ I

‘But I say unto you’, that there will be no genuine peace in this                 a~knowledge~ and proven. potentialine, of our great country for

I                                                               country, unless, in the main, the war against grinding poverty, hunger,                 giant economic growth enjom upon all of us greater exertions of

preventable diseases, squalor, and ignorance among the masses of                        body, brain, and mind – now and in the years to come    .:1

I                                               our people, is waged throughout the land, with the same united

purpose, patriotism, and grim determination as we had waged the

war against secession. It is, perhaps, not generally realised that, in                           NATIONAL GOAL CANNOT BE ACHIEVED

all history, the root causes of rebellion and violent discontent are

the evils which I have just enumerated.                                                WITH EASE AND SIMPLICITY

We have won the civil war. Yes, indeed. But to win the war for                  A c~ll for a powerful national motivation. This is the text of a speech

I                                               peace, we must recognise the real enemies. Otherwise, all our efforts

I                                               would be totally misdirected and dissipated. As far as I can discern,                         deltver~d to he Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry

1/’                                          the aggressors against peace and stability in Nigeria are abject                   and Mines of Nigeria at its First Annual Conference.

I’                                             poverty, hunger, diseases, squalor, and ignorance. They are more

I                                                                               devastating in their ravages, more insidious, more thorough, and                             It is . a great ~leasure for me to be given the unique honour of

:

114                                         addreSSing this First Annual Conference of your Association. I want

115

,

.a.

115

to assure you that, when I say this, I am not merely trying to be courteous, or uttering a platitude.

In a temporal sense, this is an infant Association. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that, whilst this is the First Anniversary of your existence, the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry has just held its 80th Annual General Meeting.

In essence, however, and by its sheer composition, this Association can be said to be as old as, and, by analogy, wiser than any of its members.

Speaking from experience of similar organisations in other parts of the world, this is an instance where the whole can be said to be much greater than the sum of its parts. The saying – ‘two heads are better than one’ – does not truly express what is common to the experience of all of us here. For, other things being equal, the integration of the exertions of two wise heads in the solution of any problem achieves far greater, far better, and far quicker result than that which can be achieved by two heads operating separately. This is particularly so in economics and other kindred disciplines. In the Preface to THE GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT, INTE”R.EST AND MONEY, the late Lord Keynes speaks of the commission of ‘undue proportion of mistakes if one thinks too long alone in economics …’

It appears that you have succeeded, in this Association, in providing a forum for the pooling of the rich and diverse mental resources of our great country in order to bring them to bear, in harmonious combination, on the varied and complex economic problems which beset us, without ever running the risk of diminishing returns. In this way, you have done a valuable service to the country’s business interests, and to the Federal Government.

Hitherto, the absence of a country-wide organised commercial and industrial body, which can speak with one voice for the whole of the private sector, made it difficult for the Federal Government to ascertain and, wherever possible, reconcile the conflicting interests involved. But henceforth, you have presented the Federal Government with an Association with which it can deal without any doubt as to its country-wide representativeness. For this reason, I assure you that the Federal Military Government win do all in its power to co-operate with, and make use of, this new Association as an effective channel of mutual communication between it and the members of our business community.

In hailing the debut of this Association, we must not fail to praise the Lagos chamber of Commerce and Industry and its sister Bodies throughout the country which, in years past, have rendered, and will, in future years, continue to render competent and invaluable services for the promotion of commerce and industry in Nigeria. Having made these preliminary remarks, I want to confine the rest of this address to three main topics, namely:

1)            Nigeria’s national objectives and aspirations.

2)            Reconstruction and rehabilitation proposals, and the complementary roles of the public and private sectors in executing them.

3)            The strengthening of the relationship between the public and private sectors.

It is no longer a question of academic speculation and polemic that nations must set themselves economic and social targets for periodic fulfilment. Unlike other matters (including the definition of the word ‘economics’ itself) on which they rarely agree, economists of the socialist and Keynesian schools as well as those of the neo-classical non-Keynesian school are now unanimous on the imperativeness of planning, and of declaring periodic national objectives and aspirations, which alone can serve as the shining beacons towards which efforts for maximum. growth can be mobilised and geared, but without which all developmental voyage is certain to be bound in drift, chaos, and misery.

Nigeria’s national objectives and aspirations can be stated in simple and succinct terms. But this should not be taken as suggesting that our national goals can be achieved with any kind of ease or simplicity.

IF WE WANT TO KEEP OUR TEAMING PEOPLES REASONABLY CONTENTED AND HAPPY, WE MUST ASPIRE AND STRIVE TO TRANSFORM THIS LAND OF OURS INTO A MODERN, PROSPEROUS, SELF-SUPPORTING, AND DEVELOPED STATE WITHIN THE NEXT TWO DECADES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE MUST SEEK TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO WORLD ECONOMY. These, in broad terms, are the objectives which We must and can pursue and achieve in the time stated.

Thanks to the development of agricultural science for its discovery of miracle grains capable of increasing output four to six times the normal quantity, and to the extent and natural fertility of our national territory, Nigeria, unlike some other parts of the world, has nothing to fear from Malthus ‘s dire prediction which still haunts many policy scientists all over the world. In our peculiar circumstances, we can aim at a population target of well over 100 millions within the next twenty years, with a full assurance of catering comfortably and satisfactorily to their welfare. For, other things being equal, it is such a population that can assure us of a truly self-contained economy, and of voluntary inter-dependence in all things with other countries of the world.

Confident, therefore, of the realities of our present population and resources, and of our undoubted prospects for the immediate future, we can embark vigorously on a rapid agricultural and industrial development which is capable of being self-generating and self-sustaining.

We can, in the next two decades, aim at supplying most, if not all, of our basic material, and high-level manpower needs. Within the same time, our economy should be capable of sustaining modem urban areas, without the ills of city slums. We can develop a healthy and decent rural life, and provide modem health, housing, and educational facilities as well as other essential social services for all our people.

We should and can successfully aim at establishing heavy industries such as iron and steel, fertiliser, chemicals, petro-chemicals, and a wide range of capital goods. We should aim at constructing a vast and pervasive network of roads, railways, and waterways, sufficient to match the speed and mobility of a rapidly expanding and developing economy. In short, we can make the masses of our people contented and happy, and capable of realising their inherent power to appreciate knowledge and beauty, and to live in peace and harmony with themselves as well as with their neighbours.

We can do more than cater sufficiently for our people. By the sheer quantum and rich diversity of its natural and manpower resources, and granting a judicious and disciplined exploitation of these resources; Nigeria can make valuable contributions to the development of Africa, and to world economy at large for the benefit of mankind as a whole.

From 1975 onwards, it is forecast that our petroleum products will make a tremendous impact on our domestic as well as world economy. In that year, for instance, it is possible for our petroleum export to fulfil 25 per cent of total United Kingdom needs, thus assisting to maintain the strength of the Sterling as a reserve currency. It is also possible, by 1975, for our petroleum exports to different parts of the world to increase our foreign exchange earnings by nearly £300 million per annum to a total of between £500 and £600 million per annum.

With the opening of the Coal Mines at Okaba, the total known coal reserves of Nigeria are put at roughly 356 million tons. These can be exploited for the benefit of ourselves, of our immediate neighbours, and of the world at large. With the commissioning last weekend of the giant Kainji Hydro-electric Power Station, we are in a position not only to supply our total power needs, but also to help supply those of our immediate neighbours.

Though our agricultural economy is still far from being modemised, yet the improvement which has taken place in recent years, together with the change which has occurred in the structure of our trade coupled with the current rapid expansion in the spheres of our import substitution industries, we are fully poised to increase the volume and variety of our exports of primary and semi-processed commodities, and to venture boldly into the exports of fully-manufactured goods.

In short, it is within our power, in a matter of twenty years, to raise the agricultural, industrial, and commercial competence of Nigeria to such a level as to enable it to contribute generously to world prosperity, and to the solution of the problems of international hunger and liquidity.

All these are by no means idle dreams. These broad national objectives and aspirations are goals which are well within our power to attain within the next two decades.

BUT IN ORDER TO SUCCEED IN ATTAINING THESE ENDS, WE NEED A POWERFUL NATIONAL MOTIVATION GENERATED BY ENLIGHTENED PATRIOTISM AND SUSTAINED BY AN INTENSE, ABSORBING, AND UNFLAGGING DESIRE TO ADVANCE OUR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS, BACKED BY CLEAR-HEADED FORWARD PLANNING, HARD WORK, AND THE CONSTANT APPLICATION OF ACUTE AND DISCIPLINED MINDS DEDICATED TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF OUR DECLARED OBJECTIVES.

But before we can embark on these great and exciting ventures, there are, because of the current civil war, extensive and intractable hurdles to be cleared as a matter of urgency. These are summed up in the now familiar expression of ‘Reconstruction and Rehabilitation’.

Much detailed work still has to be done to assess accurately, sector by sector, the capital commitments for reconstruction alone which should not exceed two years to conclude, if we are to avoid frustration and disillusionment of a catastrophic nature among the masses of our people, especially those of them who live in the war-torn areas.

It is quite possible that the total reconstruction capital commitments of the Federal Government (excluding other development capital commitments) may add up to £200 million or more. Of this amount, about £30 million will go for road reconstruction; about £20 million for the development of primary production; about £8 million for the reconstruction of our railways; and about £27 million for the reconstruction of educational facilities.

In addition, considerable amount of money will be required for rehabilitation, reintegration, and compensation for acceptable and approved war damages.

Thus far, in this address, I have painted a picture of a big challenge and of vast opportunities in the economic spheres. I have done so with every sense of responsibility, and in full awareness of the difficulties and intricacies involved. I have done so also with unshakable faith in the readiness of our people, and of all the country’s agencies of economic development and growth such as your Association, to meet the challenge with equanimity and grit, and to seize the opportunities with firm hands. Our performances in the past justify this faith; and the valuable lessons which the current emergency is teaching reinforce it.

But there is another task more urgent than that of reconstruction and rehabilitation which must be done before we can embark on the latter and on the objectives which I have previously outlined to you. That task is the early conclusion of the civil war; and the complete restoration of peace to our land. The Federal Military Government is conscious of the fact that the longer the war lasts the harder or more expensive is the work of reconstruction, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Compatible, therefore, with our economic survival, all the available resources of the Federation will now, more than ever before, be mobilised and deployed for the early end of this dreadful business.

I say ‘compatible with our economic survival’ advisedly. It is absolutely imperative that, at the end of the present conflict, our economy must remain strong enough to enable the Government to play a decisive role, and take initiative, in solving the ensuing political and economic problems. For this reason, it is incumbent on the Government to so manage its affairs now as not to lead the country into a state of economic exhaustion and paralysis at the end of the civil war.

Accordingly, the Federal Military Government is determined to continue to impose stringent financial discipline on itself, both on the domestic and external fronts, and feels compelled to continue to maintain similar discipline, already imposed on the public at large.

It is also determined to continue to employ all the forces at its command to discourage all forms of malpractices in trade and industry now and in the future.

In this connection, the Federal Military Government recognises the need to maintain a state of the utmost mutual confidence between the public and private sectors, as one of the potent means of ensuring unimpaired morale on the part of the latter, as well as unity of minds and efforts on the part of both sectors, in tackling the titanic but historic tasks that lie ahead.

This leads me to the last of the three topics on which I set out to address you.

The need to establish a good and harmonious working relationship between the public and private sectors of the economy is ever-present in the mind of the Federal Military Government. And in spite of the handicaps of the present civil war, this awareness has been demonstrated in a number of ways. I must admit, however, that in respect of some important and far-reaching legislations enacted in recent times, there have been no previous consultations at all with the private sector. The reason is simple. The abnormalities of war, anywhere in the world, tend to generate deep suspicion, and to enjoin and necessitate secretive behaviours. At the same time, apart from these admitted lapses, it is on record, by the candid admission of its former President, that the consultation, which I held with the representatives of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry in January, 1968 (we had another one later in the year), was the first of its kind.

I want to assure you that the Federal Military Government accepts the right of the people and of your Association and its members to be consulted, before any important measure or legislation (other than certain aspects of fiscal and monetary measures), which is likely to affect your interests, is introduced. I also want to assure you that this policy will come into full play as soon as the present civil war is over.

But in order to encourage the Government in its pursuit of this policy, and in order to make the dealings between the Government and your Association and its members effective and satisfactory, the members of your Association, both as corporate units and as individual businessmen, will have to act in concert and as a united team. Already, there is an incipient hiatus which illustrates what your Association has to do, from time to time, in order to establish itself as an effective channel between the Government and the entire business community.

In their recent memorandum, the Small Business Committee called upon the Government to intervene in matters normally regarded as falling within the primary jurisdiction of the private sector. The Small Businessmen urged that the banking system ‘is inflexible in the formulation of its credit policy’ towards them; that the NIDB, which incidentally is regarded by the Government as belonging to the private sector, has not assisted their businesses; that Government should ‘take direct participation in new industrial ventures as a means of encouraging foreign investment’ (a curious demand from such a body); that there is no harmonious relationship between local manufacturers and indigenous distributors; and that expatriate quotas should be more restricted. As a matter of fact, this memorandum raised only two issues which directly concern the Government, namely: the request that Government shares in successful business should be sold to ‘indigenous distributors with the appropriate ability and integrity’, and the point that Government should reserve sub-contracts and certain businesses ‘exclusively for Nigerians where competent ones are available’. I have quoted from this memorandum merely to illustrate the kind of problems which you have to solve in order to strengthen your Association for the benefits of all the sections of the business community. For, a situation in which one section of your Association is denouncing Government interference, whilst the other is saying the opposite, cannot conduce to the establishment of a smooth-working consultative machinery. I must emphasise, however, that I am not insisting that all the members of your Association can or should reach unanimity on all issues, small and big. But I do want to stress that if there are sharp, divergent, and irreconcilable views within your Association, the efforts of the Government at consultation and co-operation will be made ever so difficult.

You, Mr. President, and your eminent colleagues are the architects of this important Association, and it would be presumptuous for anyone to proffer advice on how you can make it work for the benefit of all concerned. But, from the point of view of the Government, there are a few things which we would like to see done.

In order to resolve the kind of problems posed by the Small Businessmen, it should be possible for the richer members of your Association to assist the weaker ones by conceding at least some of their requests. It is, I think important, that the educative and research arms of your Association should be strengthened to enable it to assist the petty traders and market women, where they are organised, on how to improve the wholesale and the retail trade with a view to increasing effective demand. In order to put the Government in a state of constant receptivity, your Association will have to shun politics, and refrain from open speculation on sensitive political issues. In making representations on or raising objections to any measures or legislative proposals, it should avoid vague generalisations, and support its case with objective facts and figures. Above all, your Association and its leading members must, in word and deed, demonstrate that they are conscious of and sympathetic towards Nigeria’s national objectives and aspirations.

Having said this much to admonish you, I am in honesty bound to say that the Federal Government is not unmindful of its own need for self-admonition and self-improvement, in order to inspire confidence that future dealings with us will be conducted with despatch, and that mutual consultations will be worthwhile and effective. We need to assure you of a Public Service which is alert and efficient, and can pay urgent attention to the multifarious requirements of commerce and industry. The complaint is rampant, persistent, and not without foundation, that Government agencies are too slow and too slovenly to deal with matters requiring immediate attention, with the result that the business community suffer severe losses, in time and money. It is the resolve of the Federal Military Government to see to it that the causes of this perennial complaint shall cease, and that the Pubic Service plays its role with blameless credit and despatch in the tasks that lie ahead. Your other grievances are known; the Government will endeavour to redress them. To this end, Government will, among other things, be always prepared to listen to constructive proposals submitted by your Association, especially if such proposals are based on your experience and expert knowledge of commercial and industrial practices. It will also consider the advisability of initiating joint conferences and seminars between Government officials and the members of your Association.

When I met the representatives of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the 30th January, 1968, I stressed fourpoints as follows:

1. i) The Determination of the Federal Military Government to protect the economy of the country.
2. ii) The fact that the present fiscal and monetary measures are the offspring of inescapable necessity;

iii) The resolve of the Federal Military Government to win the war, at all cost; and

1. iv) The determination of the Federal Military Government to make Nigeria economically self-reliant, now and in the future.

These and the topics which I have discussed in this address form, in outline, the overall economic strategy of our great country, for the present and the years to come.

AFRICA HAD SLEPT FAR TOO LONG

Address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Vice-Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Federal Commissioner for Finance at the Association of African Central Banks Training Course in Lagos on 5th October. 1970.

On behalf of myself, the Government, and the entire people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I have great pleasure in welcoming you to this Course.

When, last December, the Association of African Central Banks took a decision to hold this Training Course in Lagos this year, it did so in faith. The civil war was still raging. Its end was a matter of both sober and wild speculations, and at all events, was not immediately in sight. Even for those of us who were close to General Gowon’s counsel, the best we could hope for was that the war would come to an end before the third anniversary of declaration of secession in May this year. It was in those gloomy circumstances that you decided to hold this Course in Nigeria, thereby demonstrating your faith in Nigeria as a political going concern, and in her capacity to overcome and survive the frightful difficulties with which she was then confronted.

I have no doubt that you will all feel gratified that your faith in Nigeria has not been misplaced. Indeed, your faith has been more than well-justified, in that this Course is now being held under three auspicious circumstances. First, the civil war which over-hanged your decision last December is now a thing of the past, and peace is fully restored to our country. Second, this opening ceremony is taking place, so to say, in the after-glow of our Tenth Independence Anniversary Celebrations which had been witnessed by eminent delegations from all over Africa. I understand that some of you arrived in time to witness the last stages of the Celebrations. Third, whilst this Course is still on, the Supreme Military Council of Nigeria will be deliberating on our next National Development Plan. Indeed, it is not unlikely that the Plan may be launched towards the close of this Training Course. Less than a month ago, the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria concluded its first round of detailed exercise on the Plan.

The atmosphere which Nigeria offers you, therefore, is one of peace, exhilaration, and well-founded optimism. It is an atmosphere which is conducive to study and mental exertions. It is an atmosphere such as this that all the participants at this Course – lecturers and Central Bank Staff alike – need very badly, if their efforts are to be fruitful, and not to be in vain.

For a variety of reasons, the economic and monetary problems of any country – whether developed or under-developed – are today knotty and complicated. But those of Africa are much more knotty and complicated still. For one thing, in economic terms, Africa had slept for too long, compared with other Continents; for another, when it did wake up – or, better still, was rudely awakened – it found itself in political and economic shackles of the most                 degrading character.

For a period of almost one hundred years, most parts of Africa were under one form of colonial rule or another. For all these times, our political and economic affairs were subserved, and our monetary policies, such as they were, strictly tied to those of the alien titular powers. We were, perforce, dragged into wars which were not of our own making, and our economic and manpower resources were mobilised for winning them.

The effect of all these was to impose and impress on our affairs and outlook generally, an alien pattern and orientation. Some parts of Africa have acquired the British pattern and orientation, others the French, and yet others the Spanish and Portuguese. In the days of colonial rule, the affairs of many of the African countries were so distorted and oriented that, even ten years after Independence, some of us are still heavily dependent on, and helplessly tied to, the apron strings of the former colonial masters in economic and monetary matters. As a matter of fact, it is conventional these days, in reference to Africa, to speak of the Anglophile and Francophone countries or of the Sterling and Franc areas.

However, much we may cherish the good things – termination of inter-tribal wars, law and order, education, trade and commerce, etc. – however much we may cherish these good things which colonialism bestowed upon us, the fact remains that on the whole, foreign rule and its aftermath have made economic co-operation, not to talk of economic union and integration, very difficult for the African countries. We still have with us much of the prejudices, partial affections, rivalries, and the grabbing propensities of our former masters; and, unconsciously, we allow these inherited traits to influence us in our dealings with one another. Even now that the former imperialist powers of Europe are seeking ways and means of economic and political integration amongst themselves, we strive to enter into this foreign union on the side of our respective former masters.

True enough, we have shaken off our political shackles. It is now our business – and an urgent one at that – to break our economic chains, and remove every little trace of them from the face of Africa. To this end, the United Nations got us to a very good start with the establishment in 1958 of the Economic Commission for Africa. This Commission has, since its inception, worked strenuously for economic co-operation amongst African countries. In the face of difficulties, arising from antithetic orientations amongst the States of Africa, the Commission has had some outstanding achievements to its credit.

In general, the ECA can be said to be the harbinger of economic co-operation among independent African States. In particular, it was the initiator of steps which rapidly led to:

1)            the establishment of the African Development Bank and the African Institute of Economic Development and Planning

2)            the production of the Triffin Report, and

3)            the convention of the first Conference of Governors of African Central Banks in February 1966.

The second Conference of Governors of African Central Banks was held shortly after the first one in August 1966; and the third Conference in December 1969. It was at this third Conference that the Association of African Central Banks was formally inaugurated, and a decision taken to hold this Training Course.

It must not be supposed that the AACB is the answer to all our economic problems, or that the Training Course, which begins today and will last for about six weeks, will provide the cure for all our monetary ills. All that can be said for those and other measures like the ADB and the IDEP is that they are definite steps in the right direction.

But the AACB can contribute immensely to the solutions to our problems. In this connection, it is, I think, apposite to take a look at its aims, and its proposed methods of achieving them. It is not usual for an Organisation to set out its objectives as well as its proposed methods of achieving them. It is not usual for an Organisation to set out its objectives as well as its proposed modus operandi of achieving those objectives. But the proposition must be accepted that, unless people who are desirous of working together for the attainment of certain ends can have identical objectives and at the same time agree as to the methods of achieving those objectives, their intended co-operation is likely to be futile and fruitless. As Amos said of old, ‘can two walk together, except they be agreed?’ The AACB has therefore done the right thing by agreeing not only on common objectives, but also on concerted methods for achieving their prescribed objectives.

According to its Constitution, the aims of the AACB are as follows:

1. i) To promote co-operation in the monetary, banking and financial sphere in the African region;
2. ii) To assist in the formulation of guidelines along which agreements among African countries in the monetary and financial fields shall proceed;

iii) To help to strengthen all efforts aimed at bringing about and maintaining monetary and financial stability in the African region; and

1. iv) To examine the effectiveness of international economic and financial institutions in which African countries have an interest and suggest ways of possible improvement.

Its modus operandi is spelt out in the following terms:

1. i) To provide for periodic meetings of Governors of African Central Banks, and, where Central Banks are non-existent, the Heads of similar monetary institutions in the region;
2. ii) To promote the exchange of ideas and experiences on monetary and banking matters and questions of monetary, banking and financial co-operation in Africa;

iii) To facilitate the collection, pooling and dissemination of information on monetary, banking, financial and other economic matters of interest to its members.

1. iv) To undertake the study of monetary and financial problems in the African region and all such matters as may be deemed necessary to the maintenance of financial stability, or generally conducive to greater co-operation among its members.
2. v) To organise seminars, courses and other training programmes for personnel of banking and financial institutions in the African region;
3. vi) To provide technical advice and assistance which serve its purposes and come within its functions;

vii) To establish study groups and/or institutions and sub-regional committees and such other subsidiary bodies as it deems appropriate for facilitating the carrying out of its functions           and activities and the fulfilment of its purposes; and       .

viii) To undertake such other activities and concern itself              with any other matters as may advance its purposes.

In employing these methods of operation, the AACB is resolved to establish and maintain appropriate relations with international organisations pursuing objectives similar or related to those of its own.

It will be seen that the AACB’s aims, and its proposed methods of achieving them are laudable and unexceptionable. With the holding of this Training Course, however, only a small beginning has been made in the long and laborious process of accomplishing the worthy objectives which the AACB has set before itself. But it must be emphasized that this Training Course is both a correct beginning and a step in the right direction.

As a result partly of the invention of various kinds of labour-saving devices including automation, computer, etc., and partly of misplaced emphasis, the fundamental point is sometimes overlooked by rulers and planners alike that nothing of utility in this world can be produced without the physical and mental labour of man. Even the .picking of a ripe fruit which has fallen from a tree requires some measure – albeit insignificant – of physical and mental application. It is correct then to say that no production can take place and no production problem can be solved without the active and dynamic intervention of man. Even the electronic computers, whose speed, precision, and infallibility in solving problems are extolled above so-called defective human efforts, are the handiwork of man. Unless this indispensable instrument for the tackling of economic problem is itself appropriate and adequate, the resultant solution is more likely than not to be wrong or defective. It follows, therefore, that the economic prerequisite of the countries of Africa is appropriately and adequately trained manpower. Give them this, and their economic problems, having regard to their abundant natural resources, are more than 60 per cent solved. In this connection, it must be realised that, in the final analysis, neo-colonialism is basically a phenomenon of the shortage of technical and managerial know-how.

It is for all these reasons, therefore, that I regard the AACB as doing first things first by holding this Training Course. In the words of the AACB itself, the general object of this Course is:

‘to assist in the training of officers from the middle. Management to Junior Executive positions in African Central Banks. The courses will also build up knowledge of Central Banking with particular reference to conditions in African countries and other developing countries of the world.’

A Course such as this is bound to be twice beneficial. It will immediately and directly benefit those who receive instructions thereat. It will also benefit the Central Banks and members of their top management by the provision for them of better equipped staff. Time was when the functions of Central banks were confined to the maintenance of:

1)            reasonable stability in the internal price level;

2)            stability in the external value of the currency; and

3)            balance of payments equilibrium.

But, today, these very difficult and intricate functions have been further complicated by the assumption by the Central Banks, or probably it is more correct to say, by the imposition on them by all the Governments of the World of entirely new functions. As a result of this development, it is now the duty of the Central Banks to discharge efficiently and effectively, in addition to the traditional ones, the functions of:

1)            promoting a higher rate of economic growth, and raising the standard of living of the people; and

2)            achieving full employment.

In tackling all these gargantuan problems, African Central Banks and planners are in a happier position than their counterparts in many of the developed countries. Ours is not the problem of striving to make already fully utilised natural resources yield greater increase, by an extra-skilful redeployment of the factors of production. On the contrary, the prime causes of our underdevelopment are inadequate development and inappropriate orientation of human resources, as well as the non-utilisation, under-utilisation, and mis-utilisation of our natural resources. There are even many instances where African countries have very little knowledge of the extent of their natural resources, let alone their full or sufficient utilisation.

Granting, therefore, that the other sectors of our economic activities pursue their assignments with the same enlightened and realistic approach as the African Central Banks, the traditional and modern responsibilities laid on the latter especially those relating to (1) the balance of payments equilibrium, (2) the promotion of higher economic growth, and (3) the achievement of full employment will not prove so onerous, as at first sight appear. And it my humble opinion, which I believe may be shared by many, that the continuance of this Training Course in the future will, in all certainty, further help to lighten the burdensomeness, if not the gravity, of those responsibilities.

With these few remarks, I have the greatest pleasure in declaring this First AACB ‘s Training Course, held in Nigeria in 1970, open.

THE CAUSES OF OUR NATIONAL MALADIES ARE ESSENTIALLY ECONOMIC

From the lecture entitled ‘Socialism In The Service of Nigeria’ delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Chancellor of the University of Ife, at the University of Ife, Ile-Ife, on 9th April, 1970.

The thirty-months’ civil war which has just ended had witnessed and produced many tragedies, including unproductive expenditure of vast sums of money, enormous destruction of property, considerable slowing down of progress, and incalculable sufferings and deprivations.

It is our fervent and declared aim to erase the physical and psychological effects of these tragedies as quickly as human ingenuity can contrive to repair the damage, to retrieve lost ground, and to promote concord and unity in place of bitterness and enmity. Whether or not we succeed in achieving our aim depends wholly and solely on the thoroughness ‘with which we are able to remove the basic causes of our national ills, and the extent to which we are resolved; from now on, to steer clear of those causes, and tread a new path of national sanity and rationality.

I have said it before, and I want to say it again, that the causes of our national maladies are essentially economic. It is important, therefore, for us to bear it in mind that if we failed to find the right solutions to our economic problems, we would not succeed in solv.ing our political and social problems.

About 2,400 years ago, Plato, the master-mind, said in THE REPUBLIC as follows:

‘A State … arises out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants…

‘Then as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another, and when the helpers and partners are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State.

‘And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good.’

He then declared, rightly and unassailably in my view, that: the true creator of a State is necessity which is the mother of our invention. The first and greatest of necessities is food … the second is dwelling, and the third clothing and that sort of thing. ‘

It is clear, therefore, that the sole justification of a State is the economic advantages which division of labour, and exchange can confer on the inhabitants of the State. Groups of families, or of individuals if you like, do not aggregate and unite in one community just for the love of one another. The compelling motivation is economic; and political arrangements are necessary only in order to lay a firm and stable base for economic growth and prosperity, and regulate economic relations and intercourse between the inhabitants of the State. Take away economic motivation, and the natural legitimacy or justification, as well as the automatic and self-sustaining cohesion of the State disappears.

It is imperative that we should keep this cardinal point vividly in our minds as we venture forward to re-create Nigeria. It is not in dispute that we had fought ‘to keep Nigeria one’ partly because of our strong patriotic sentiments for a united Nigeria. But whether we are conscious of it or not, it is also true that the overriding motivation for fighting ‘to keep Nigeria one’ is economic. We all have a vision – never mind the degree of clarity in every individual case – of a country with enormous material and manpower resources, and a large, viable, and self-contained market, capable of being transformed into a modern economy within a comparatively short time, and of enhancing the prosperity and social well-being of all its citizens without discrimination. We also have a vision of a potentially economic, and hence political, giant in Africa, in every sense of the word. A diminution of the Nigerian territory would falsify our vision, dash our hopes, and specifically deprive us of the unlimited economic advantages derivable from a united Nigeria. Hence we felt ourselves compelled to fight – and to do so valiantly – ‘to keep Nigeria one’. Similarly, the hope of an assured greater economic prosperity and social well-being in a united Nigeria, in contradistinction to the comparative niggardliness of a fragmented portion of the country, is the mainspring for the smoothness with which the process of reintegration is now taking place.

I would like to emphasise that, if all these economic hopes were falsified, though dedicated leaders in the country for the time-being, by whipping up patriotic sentiments, would still no doubt succeed in keeping the country united, yet they would only do so at great cost to social progress, and to the well-being of the individual Nigerian citizens.

My case then is that, in order to keep Nigeria harmoniously united, and, at the same time, fulfil the natural, ultimate, supreme, and inalienable purpose of that unity, the present and future rulers ‘of this country must place the most crucial emphasis on, and attach the utmost importance to, the advancement of the economic prosperity and social well-being of the entire people of Nigeria without exception or discrimination.

If this is our aim – and I am sure that all of us will readily declare and proclaim that it is – then there is only one path of socio-economic policy open to us: it is socialism. In Nigeria, however, like in other parts of the world, socialism is a much misunderstood, much misrepresented, and much dreaded socio-economic philosophy.

We have heard it said in responsible and weighty quarters that socialism is a dangerous and pernicious foreign doctrine and ideology which must not be allowed entry into, let alone foothold in Nigeria, or in any part of Africa for that matter. Many professed Nigerian socialists have made the issue worse confounded, by regarding hatred of the affluent, expropriation of the rich, violence, extreme sourness in social life, eccentricity in dress and appearance, and authoritarianism in government as inseparable to the introduction and practice of socialism. Others who have deep-seated prejudices against socialism, but who cannot afford to ignore public demand for it, have adopted the ambivalent approach that whilst what they call the European type of socialism is a foreign philosophy, there is a kind of socialism which is native and indigenous to Africa.

This is the so-called African socialism which, according to them, is more suited to Africa than the so-called Russian or Chinese socialism. There are those who dread socialism because they equate it with chaos, widespread killings, collapse of the major and strategic sectors of the economy, economic retrogression and stagnation, and general poverty.

When a term becomes so misunderstood, so deliberately misrepresented, confused, and confounded, and so ignorantly dreaded as socialism is, there is an urgent need, in the face of the declaration that it is the only path to the prosperity and social well-being of the entire people of Nigeria without discrimination, for a clear theoretical definition of the term, as well as of an equally clear description and explanation of its practical contents.

Socialism is a normative social science. It sets the standards of human ends and social objectives which economic forces must serve, and prescribes the methods by which these forces may be controlled, directed, and channeled for the attainment of the declared ends and objectives. It is unlike economics which, inspite of the long and strenuous advocacy of A.C. Pigou, does not concern itself with social norms or human welfare. According to Lord Robbins, in a famous definition which is now generally regarded as the most scientific, ‘economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses’. Hence prostitution, burglary, unemployment, warfare, for instance, are proper subjects for economic study.

In other words, in an effort to satisfy infinite ends with scarce means which have alternative uses, no morality or sense of justice or equity is allowed to enter into consideration. The overriding aim is to secure the best possible means and to maximise the utility of such means for the immediate and pressing wants. In the process of doing this, two distinct groups of agents are to be discerned: the producers and the consumers. In a planned economy and as a matter of common sense, the interests of these two should harmonise and be absolutely complementary. But in an unplanned capitalist economy, their interests are always at wide variance and in violent conflict. The consumer cannot always get what he wants in the right quantity or quality, simply because the producer is not always producing what the former wants in the proper quantity or quality.

Besides, there is a constant fluctuation in the marginal utility of available goods both to the consumer and the producer, who very often interchange positions during the conduct of a variety of transactions which take place in a modem economy. Furthermore, the conflict between the producer and consumer is often intensified by the fact that the consumer is always anxious to buy from the cheapest possible market, whilst the producer is always keen on selling in the dearest possible market – the aim in the one case being to maximise the utility of the chosen means for the satisfaction of given wants, and in the other to maximise the utility of the chosen factors of production for the purpose of earning the largest possible profit.

The umpire who presides over and adjudicates in this perpetual conflict is the price mechanism, otherwise known as the forces of supply and demand. We all know that this umpire has no regard for justice or equity, nor consideration for the social well-being of the individual members of society. Under its auspices, abundance is punished; scarcity is rewarded; all agents of production are treated with equal difference or indifference as the case may be, even though some are human beings and others are just gross material resources; and those who contribute very little to the aggregate national wealth more often than not get the lion’s share in the course of distribution, whilst those who contribute the most may get nothing at all or comparatively very little for their efforts. Again, under its auspices, greed and naked self-interest are allowed to flourish, breeding in their wake permanent unemployment, or what is euphemistically called ‘minimum reserve of labour’, as well as the co-existence of extremes of wealth and poverty which, in their turn, breed discord, strife, violence and revolution.

It is these blind and impersonal forces of supply and demand and of the margin that socialism seeks to humanise by controlling, regulating, and directing them for just and equitable social ends. In other words, the aims, of socialism are:

1)            to harmonise the activities and interests of the producers and consumers, and establish an absolute and permanent complementariness among them;

2)            to ensure that each of the agents of production is given equal opportunity to give of the best that it is capable of, and that it is rewarded in accordance with its contribution to the aggregate national product;

3)            to replace the blind forces of supply and demand with a conscious and scientific referee who, among other things, will see to it that there is premium on abundance rather than on scarcity; and

4)            to cater to the needs of those members of society who, for reasons of age or infirmity or unemployment, are unable to participate in the acts of production, and are therefore unable to fend for themselves.

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, we can now define SOCIALISM AS THE SCIENCE WHICH STUDIES ECONOMIC FORCES WITH A VIEW TO CONTROLLING, REGULATING, AND DIRECTING THEM FOR THE ATTAINMENT AND CONTINUOUS ENHANCEMENT OF THE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF ALL THE CITIZENS IN A STATE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR DISCRIMINATION.

The following quotation from Engels is, I think apposite here. Says he in SOCIALISM, UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC:

‘The forces operating in society work exactly like the forces operating in nature: blindly, violently, destructively, so long as we do not understand them and fail to take them into account. But when once we recognise them, and understand how they work, their direction and their effects, the gradual subjection of them to our will, and the use of them for the attainment of our aims, depends entirely on ourselves … As long as we’ obstinately refuse to understand the nature and the character of these forces, so long they remain at work in spite of us, in opposition to us, and so long they master us …’

It ‘is not difficult to see from our definition and the quotation from Engels that two approaches to the attainment of socialism are dictated:

1)            the study of economic forces, or of what Engels terms ‘the forces operating in society’; and

2)            the control, regulation, and direction of these forces or, as Engels put it, ‘the subjection of these forces to our will and the use of them for the attainment of our aims’.

From what we have said in the early part of this lecture, it is obvious that the supreme aim of socialism is social harmony via social justice or, to use a popular expression, ‘equality of opportunity for all’.

There is a popular misconception that socialism advocates equality among all men anti women: Nothing could be further from the truth. Educated and responsible socialists will never subscribe to such arrant nonsense. The science of genetics is now conclusive on the point that, because of hereditary and environmental factors, human beings differ very widely in natural physical and mental endowments. Socialism, therefore, recognises inequality in natural physical and mental endowments as between one man and another. But socialism insists that inequality among men and women should be such as is inevitably and unavoidably imposed by genetic and environmental limitations which cannot at present be overcome. No more, no less. Consequently, socialism is strongly and implacably opposed to such inequality as arises from the provision of opportunity to some and the denial of it to others. In this connection, it is necessary to, bear in mind that inequality of opportunity, in matters of employment, education, health, good food, etc., leads automatically to inequality of income which in turn, more often than not, leads to inequality of political and social status. It will, I am sure, be of interest to hear what Engels has to say in this regard in ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY:

‘The most powerful, economically dominant class … becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class.’

Hence, under socialism, every citizen, whatever his natal, tribal, ethnic, or social origin or connection, is guaranteed equal opportunity to develop his natural physical and mental endowments.

So that whatever residual inequality there is would be purely genetic and environmental. Even here, it is well known that through education of the right type and through selective development programme, by the Government, the handicaps of environment can be overcome. Also, through education and under the guidance of experts, adverse and detrimental hereditary traits can be eliminated.

The point, I think, is worth mentioning, at this juncture, that the best and the most fruitful period for providing the citizens with equal opportunity is their formative and most educable years, from the age of 5 to 6 to 21 or thereabout. This is the time when the Government must seek persistently and conscientiously to develop such natural physical and mental talents as each citizens has. If this is done, the instances, where children, with less natural endowments but with easy access to education, good health, and gainful employment, do better economically and hence also politically and socially than others with far greater natural endowments but who, for natal and other causes, have no access at all or have very constricted access to education, good health, and gainful’ employment, would completely disappear.

I have so far spoken of inter-personal inequality, artificially imposed by acts of commission or omission on the part of society, which it is the aim of socialism to eliminate. But in Nigeria today, apart from glaring inter-personal inequality, there is also inter-regional or inter-state inequality which cries loud for extermination. There is no doubt that a good deal of what we know as inter-state inequality would disappear as soon as we eliminate inter-personal inequality. But I am convinced that no amount of equality of opportunity for the individuals would eradicate the inequality which now exists among Nigerian States as geographical entities, in the matter of economic and social development. We all know that Nigeria as a whole is an economically underdeveloped country. But we also know too well that some States in Nigeria are more underdeveloped than others, and that some geographical areas within a State are comparatively much more developed than others within the same State. It is the aim of socialism to eliminate inter-state and intra-state inequality as well as inter-personal inequality. Some of the ways by which equality of opportunity for all can be achieved may now be stated in more concrete terms.

Under socialism, every citizen in Nigeria would have equal access:

1)            to gainful employment;

2)            to education to the limit of his natural capacity; and to health, including good food, good water, good

3)            dwelling, decent clothing, etc.

Similarly, every State in Nigeria and every section of a State would have equal access to economic development in every sense of the term, to enable it to keep the bulk of its citizens, other than a few professionals, to civil servants, and high business executives, gainfully employed within its territory.

After all these have been done, some inter-personal and inter-state as well as intra-state inequalities are bound to remain. But they will be inequalities which arise, pure and simple, from genetic and geographical limitations which, for the time being, neither science nor technology can overcome. In this circumstance, and if the experiences of socialist countries and of everyday life are anything to go by, there can be no doubt that even the persons, the states, and the areas concerned would readily appreciate and understand the causes of the residual and irremovable inequalities, more especially as all the citizens of Nigeria, regardless of their birth and place of origin, would continue to enjoy equality of opportunity as we have described it.

From its definition and description, it is obvious that the attainment of socialist ideals demands intensive study of the economic forces at work, and rigorous and scientific planning for controlling, regulating, and directing them for just and equitable social ends. It must be emphasised, however, that the control, regulation, and direction of economic forces inescapably implies the introduction of certain far-reaching measures, some of which should be mentioned.

It is now common knowledge that you cannot harmonise the divergent and conflicting interests of the consumer and the producer, unless the means of production and the power of regulating consumption are under the same conscious control and direction. Also, production will always be in danger of painful spasms and paroxysms, unless the means of exchange as well as of production are concentrated in the same hands. Furthermore, the same agencies which control and direct the means of production and exchange must consciously control and direct the forces of supply and demand, with a view to ensuring the just and equitable distribution of the results of productive efforts among the agents of production. From these considerations, it will be seen that public ownership, nationalisation, or socialisation of the means of production, exchange, and distribution is inevitable in a socialist economy.

In this connection, it is necessary to point out that some eminent economists even hold the view that public ownership, nationalisation, or socialisation of certain sectors of the economy is indispensable to the success of national economic planning under any economic system, including the mixed one under which we now operate.

In the eleventh lecture in the series of lectures delivered under the auspices of the NISER, and published in his book entitled LECTURES ON THE THEORY OF SOCIALIST PLANNING, Mr. J.G. Zielinski discusses the general principles of efficient planning, under any economic system, be it capitalist or socialist. In the introductory part of this lecture he poses and answers an important question as follows:

‘Are there principles of efficient planning general enough to be valid in any country engaged in national economic planning, irrespective of vast differences in socio-political setting and in level of economic development attained? My answer to this question is “yes”.’

In the course of this eleventh lecture, Mr. Zielinski enunciates four observations and four conclusions. It is the first observation and the first conclusion that are pertinent here.

‘First observation. There is a certain critical size and composition of the public sector, below which effective planning is impossible.

‘The “critical size” of the public sector necessary for effective planning is usually defined as a requirement of concentrating in the government’s hands so-called “commanding heights” of the economy. In a recent article Professor V. B. Singh of India formulates this requirement as follows: “The history of planned economic development reveals that planning cannot be successful unless and until the ‘commanding heights’ (that is, basic industries, transport, communications, banking and finance.) are in the public hands.’

‘Conclusion: If a developing country wants to engage in effective economic planning, its public sector has to embrace certain strategic spheres of economic activity. Otherwise there is a serious danger that its planning remain mainly on paper.’

The message in these quotations for Nigeria, planning big for reconstruction and development, is eloquent and indubitable. We cannot leave what Professor Singh graphically terms the ‘commanding heights’ in the exclusive control of alien private sector, and hope for satisfying success in our development plan, let alone for such success as will benefit all Nigerians without exception or discrimination. It will be seen from all that we have said that socialism is a socio-economic philosophy which aims at promoting the prosperity and social well-being of all the citizens of Nigeria without discrimination. In this sense, it is a grave error for anyone in Nigeria, or in any other part of Africa for that matter, to regard socialism as an alien or evil doctrine; or for any professed Nigerian socialist to insist that the introduction of socialism necessarily imports hatred of the affluent, forcible expropriation of a certain class of people, or violence. It is also a gross misconception or ignorance or both, on the pan of any well-to-do or socially-well-placed Nigerian to dread socialism.

It is important for such people to realise, before it is too late, that danger to their person and property is more present and much graver in a society where extremes of wealth and property coexist, than in a society where such extremes do not exist, and where in any case, the children of those in the upper income brackets as well as of those in the lower income groups have equal access, without discrimination, to education, good health, and gainful employment.

It will be seen further that by definition and description, socialism is a socio-economic philosophy which is universal in its aims and applicability. It is as much Nigerian or African as it is Russian or Chinese in its aims and applicability. Those who, therefore, speak of African socialism as distinct from Russian or Chinese socialism, as well as those who regard the current advocacy for the introduction of socialism to Nigeria as premature, do so in utter ignorance and misunderstanding of what socialism connotes and stands for.

If socialism is as we have defined and described it, then it must be admitted that its role in the re-creation of Nigeria is indispensable. Before the civil war, or indeed before the military take-over in 1966, Nigeria had many economic and social problems of stupendous and frightening proportions. Unemployment was already rife and becoming secular. Behind and beyond the false facades of a few urban areas, there was extreme poverty amongst more than 95 per cent of our people; preventable diseases had become endemic; and illiteracy and ignorance were the order of the day. There was acute shortage of the senior category of indigenous high-level manpower in every sphere of our governmental and scholastic activities; with the result that where national interests and pride dictated complete Nigerianisation, there was considerable lowering of efficiency. The gap in economic and social developments between the northern and southern parts of the country remained dangerously wide; so much so that it had begun to undermine and threaten national concord and sense of oneness.

Apart from helping in a small way to reduce the large population in our unemployment market, the civil war has only succeeded in complicating and aggravating these pre-war problems. Today, most of our hospitals, as well as many homes are filled with the wounded and the maimed of the war. Several tens of thousands of soldiers are waiting to be absorbed into gainful civil employment; and, in the meantime, that is whilst they wait, the nation is properly called upon to maintain them in reasonable comfort with funds which could have been used for economically and socially productive purposes. Orphans and widows abound; and there is silent grief in many hearts for the loss of those able-bodied bread-winners who had been killed in the war. Public over-head capital, like roads, bridges, railways, schools, etc., which was acquired at enormous costs and which had been damaged during the war, is waiting to be restored and reconstructed at higher costs than before. Those Nigerians who lost their properties during the war are waiting forlornly for the wherewithal to replace them. As if these complications and aggravations were not enough, the demons of unemployment, poverty, ignorance, and disease continue, as ever before, to ravage our land.

These and more are the problems with which we are now confronted; and we will do well to realise that they are far worse and more deadly, far more subtle and much more insidious and therefore much more dangerous enemies and evils than the rebellion which we have just crushed. In this regard, we don’t, I think, need to be told that unemployment breeds frustration, resentment, and anti-social tendencies; that poverty breeds envy and hatred of the affluent, antagonism to society at large, and rebellion; that disease breeds inertia, complete lack of enthusiasm and dynamism, and fatalism; that ignorance breeds misunderstanding, promotes oppression and exploitation (because, as it has been wisely said, there would be no oppressors and exploiters if there were no oppressables and exploitables), and eventually provokes violent social clashes and collisions; and that the aftermath of civil war, with all its bitter poignant memories, and lingering sufferings, tends to poison motives, distort and warp thinking processes, and pollute emotions.

A careful examination of all our post-war problems, varied as they look, will reveal that they are all basically economic in nature and character. Even education and health services for the eradication of ignorance and disease are indispensable parts of the infrastructure which an underdeveloped country, and particularly Nigeria after the civil war, needs to transform itself rapidly into a modem economy.

In a broad Sense, the. world-now offers two kinds of solution for all economic problems. They are the capitalist and the socialist solution.

In the three companion books which I have written since 1966 namely: Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution. The People’s So Republic and The Strategy and Tactics of the People s Republic of Nigeria, I have had a good deal of hard things to say about capitalism. The settled view to which my study of the subject leads me is that the quintessence, the soul, and the main driving force of capitalism is a compound of greed, naked self-interest, utter disregard for the interests and rights of others, destructive competition, opposition to any form of innovation, control, or planning, etc. It goes without saying that a-system, which possesses these ugly characteristics, can only further complicate our already complex post-war problems.

At pages 161 and 162 of Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution, I have written on this subject as follows:

‘For Nigeria, there is even one other danger in capitalism. It breeds tribalism. It is generally agreed, even by its most faithful advocates and devotees, that the one and only motive force of capitalism is naked self-interest; and that one of its essential characteristics is impersonal group loyalty. Wherever there is capitalism then, naked self-interest and unabashed group loyalty reign supreme; greed dominates the hearts of men; whilst mutual and destructive antagonisms put on the cloak of orthodox business competition. Portrayed in this way- and it is by no means an inaccurate or exaggerated portrayal- it should be easy for anyone to perceive the nexus between capitalism and tribalism in the Nigerian context. In its evil connotation, tribalism also represents unabashed group loyalty, or, to put it in another way, tribalism, in the derogatory sense, is the combined manifestation of the naked self-interests of a number of individuals who are bound together by some cultural ties such as language, ethnic affinity, and religion.

‘If we are really sincere in our desire to stamp out tribalism, we must put an end to, at least, most of the manifold evils which abound and proliferate, with general approval, in a capitalist economy. Try as we may, we will not succeed otherwise.

I still stand firmly by the views expressed in this quotation. I only wish to add that the capitalist system also encourages and extols the law of the jungle. We have all learnt that in the jungle only the most cunning, the most brutal, and the most ruthless can exercise unfettered freedom, and flourish. Also in the jungle, every beast is a law unto itself; and the only orderly association there consists of an accord among the predatory carnivores to hunt together in packs, and of agreement among the herbivores to go about in herds as a means of protecting themselves against wanton and easy destruction by the predatory carnivores. It only remains for me to liken the capitalists to the carnivores and the workers and peasant farmers to the herbivores, in order to draw an analogy which is not easy to dispute.

Furthermore, in all its history, the capitalist system has never consistently redounded to the benefit of the common man. And in countries where it is still practised, faithfully and almost in its pure orthodox form, it continues to generate political instability, economic crisis, and social upheaval, and to promote the coexistence of extremes of affluence and poverty with all their attendant ugly repercussions. A system, which has all these built-in and incurable evils, is too bad and too dangerous for Nigeria at any time, and certainly does not deserve to be accommodated after the civil war.

If I like, I could now, quite rightly, take the validly logical position that, by the elimination of the capitalist system, we are now inescapably left with the socialist type of solution. But it will be seen that I do not intend in this lecture to rely on this dialectical device alone. On the contrary, I have gone to a considerable length to show that, on its own intrinsic merits, socialism is the only safe and beneficial path which Nigeria should tread in tackling and solving its post-war problems.

As we have noted before, socialisation, or the public control of ‘the commanding heights’ of the economy, is a sine qua non of socialism, and of planning even under the capitalist system. But there are a number of practical problems of a technical and political nature which will beset socialisation in Nigeria. I shall confine myself in this lecture to only two of the technical problems. The first is the mobilisation of sufficient foreign exchange to pay the compensation which will be due to foreign investors in Nigeria, on the socialisation of their enterprises; and the second is the efficient management of the socialised enterprises.

With regard to the first problem, we shall need something in the neighbourhood of £500 million to compensate foreigners, for taking over their investments in Nigeria- T-o those who may be nursing the idea of forcibly expropriating foreign investors, I would like to say that we would only be inviting economic chaos and disaster if we did. The countries affected would not take the confiscation of the investments of their nationals lying low. They would retaliate fiercely, and their retaliation might take many forms, most of which will assuredly hurt us very badly and painfully. The speed at which we socialise, therefore, must depend on the rate at which we mobilise enough foreign exchange to pay this huge amount of compensation to foreign investors. It is my considered view, however, that if we manage our fiscal and monetary affairs with prudence, honesty, and due sense of patriotism, we can raise this amount of money within a reasonable period of time.

As regards the second problem, it must be our resolve, before or on socialising any enterprise, to Nigerianise such enterprise completely, and at the same time to maintain, and If possible improve upon the existing standard of management and control. This is essential if .we’ are to avoid the gross inefficiency which now characterises and plagues our statutory corporations and state-owned companies. In this regard, the first thing to do is to endeavour to ascertain the causes of failure in our public enterprises and remove them. In my view, there are five causes for the notorious performances of our public enterprises, all of which, fortunately, are curable and preventable.

FIRST: In public enterprises, the ratio of senior category of high-level employees to intermediate category is much less than in private enterprises. This is amply borne out by Table 3at page 27 of Manpower Study No .2 published by the National Manpower Board in 1964, where the ratios of senior category to intermediate category in the private and public sectors respectively are 6:11 and 11 :32. The position is much worse in the civil service which is the supervisory organ of public corporations and state-owned companies. The ratio of senior category to intermediate category in the civil service, according to the same source, is 3: 11. This factor deserves special attention; because it explains, in a substantial sense, the common phenomenon whereby Nigerian workers, under alien private enterprises, perform much better than under indigenous private, or Nigerian-owned public enterprises.

SECOND: It is common knowledge that, as a result of nepotism, favouritism, extreme partisan politics, bribery, and other forms of corruption, a good number of those who are’ appointed into the senior category of high-level employment in public enterprises and in the civil service have neither the academic nor professional qualifications, nor the experience, nor the qualities, requisite for their assignments. It is well-known that many of these people would not have been appointed into equivalent posts’ under alien private management.

THIRD: The same evil factors which were responsible for wrong appointments into the senior category of high-level posts, were also responsible for deliberate over-capitalisation of our public enterprises, and the purchase, at inflated prices, of inferior goods and services for the use of these enterprises.

FOURTH: As compared with the private sector, there is a measure of disincentive for high-level officials in the public service generally. But I would like to point out, in this connection, that incentive is, to not a little extent, a matter of relativity. If A who works for X earns more than B who works for Y, for doing the same kind of work within the same economy, the tendency would be for B, unless he is specially dedicated, to want to exert himself less than A, or at any rate not to give of his best.

FIFTH: The old attitude of mind is still lingering that, in the service of the Government, one does not need to exert oneself to the utmost. It was an attitude of mind which was cultivated, and which prevailed under the British Colonial Administration. As I have said, these defects can be cured and prevented. To this end, there is urgent need for the proper training of Nigerians, to fit them for their respective appointments in the public service. There is need for radical reorganisation and improvement in our existing public corporations and state-owned companies, to ensure that their executives are men with the requisite qualifications and expertise. There is also need for re-education and reorientation of all our public servants.

BRIGADIER MOHAMMED AND HIS TEAM MUST ENTERTAIN NO ILLUSIONS AS TO THEIR INSTANT AND TRANSITIONAL ROLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY

From a press statement issued by Chief Obafemi Awolowo on 18th August 1975

‘There is an urgent and crying need to recognise certain factors which … have not hitherto been given the due recognition, emphasis, and weight that they deserve…

‘… Because of its youth as an independent sovereign State,… and because of the strains and stresses inherent in it as a multi-national State, Nigeria cannot afford an unduly protracted political and economic illness. The pressing danger involved in the present illness of our country is that it might kill more by its sheer protraction than by its severity.

‘… Our Military Administration must be recognised for what it was originally intended and proclaimed to be: an essentially corrective regime, and not a reconstructing Administration with ready and lasting answers to all our political and economic ills.

‘In my view, the main task of the military regime is to perform a quick and successful surgical operation … It would be too much of a risk for it to attempt to undertake the massive and never-ending task of rebuilding or reconstructing our body-politic. It would be too much of a risk, because the Army would then be embarking on a venture for which it is not by tradition and training equipped, and which by its very nature is an ever-recurring phenomenon in any healthy progressive State.

‘… As there are good soldiers, so there are good politicians. Not all soldiers are saints, and not all politicians are devils…

I have no doubt in my mind that if the corrective measures, Which our Military leaders have in mind, are prosecuted with fearlessness, impartiality, and despatch, a new breed of politicians would emerge which would make the welfare of the people the sole object of their public career and pursuit.’

The above quotations are extracts from the speech which I delivered on the occasion of my installation as Chancellor of Ife University on 15th May, 1967, eight years ago. I consider it appropriate to open this statement with them, and to commend them to our present Military Rulers, in the ardent hope that they, unlike their predecessors, will not completely ignore the thought and message contained in them.

I cannot claim to know the new Head of State, Brigadier Murtala Mohammed intimately. But since 1967, and by virtue of my one-time position in the Federal Military Government and the War Cabinet, I had had enough glimpses of, and reports about him, and some of the members of his team (particularly the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, Brigadier Obasanjo, the Chief of staff Army, Brigadier Danjuma, the Inspector-General of Police, Alhaji Yusuf and the Commissioner for Establishments, Brigadier Oluleye) to enable me to form the opinion that they would succeed where others before them had failed.

But to succeed, Brigadier Mohammed and his team must entertain no illusions as to their instant and transitional role in the affairs of our great country: it is to get us quickly through the long, dark, and dreary tunnel in which we had trudged, doubtfully, painfully, but with recurring faith in an ultimate relief, during the past nine years.

Time was when it had been hoped that we would emerge from this depressing and stifling tunnel, not later than two years after the end .of the Civil War. Indeed, advice, indicating November 1972 as the latest and most suitable time for ‘handing over of Government to civilians’, was tendered to the Head of State. The advice was neither acknowledged nor discussed. Then hopes were raised for 1976. But these were dashed in October 1974, without shame and with total disregard for the deep feelings and yearnings of our people.

Nigerians have never minced words in characterising military rule as a political aberration and abnormality. The most urgent tasks which confront our Military Rulers, therefore, are to terminate this abnormality, and to get us out of the dismal tunnel in an orderly manner, in the shortest time possible. But in tackling these tasks both the Military and the civilians have important parts to play.

It will be recalled that about midway through the tunnel, that is on 1st October, 1970, the Military formulated in precise terms, the hurdles which they unilaterally thought remained to be cleared before we could again emerge into light, freedom and democracy. There were nine of them; but a tenth – ‘The Future of Lagos as Federal Capital’ – has been added by our present Military Rulers.

They are:

1. i) the reorganisation of the Armed Forces;
2. ii) the implementation of the National Development Plan and the repair of the damage and neglect of the War;

iii) the eradication of corruption in our national life;

1. iv) the settlement of the question of the creation of more States;
2. v) the preparation and adoption of a new Constitution;
3. vi) the introduction of a new Revenue Allocation Formula;

vii) conducting a national population census;

viii) the organisation of genuinely national political parties;

1. ix) the organisation of elections and installation of popularly elected governments in the States and in the centre;
2. x) Federal Capital.

For the benefit of all concerned, I would like to comment on these ten items of programme. Before doing so, however, there is one point which I would like to clear. The question may be asked, quite naturally and justifiably, why I had not publicly dealt with the first nine topics since 1970 when they were handed down to us’. The answer is simple and brief.

About seven days before the broadcast of 1st October, 1970, I was casually told by the then Head of State of the Military’s time-table for return to civilian rule. A special meeting of the civilian members of the Federal Executive Council was to be convened. At the meeting, these members would be informed – only informed – of a Nine-Point Programme. They would not be called upon to comment on the Programme, because they were interested parties: they had vested interest in return to civilian rule. The Nine-Point Programme was then outlined to me for my information. The special Council meeting was never held; and, as far as I know, the only other civilian member of the Council who knew anything about the Nine- Point Programme, before it was broadcast to the nation and the world, was Dr. Okoi Arikpo. He was casually informed at the airport, on the eve of the broadcast.

‘Giving advice,’ says Lord Avebury, ‘is a thankless job.

Thankless, that is, even when asked. But when you are told to your face that your advice on a particular matter is not required, because you have vested interest in that matter, you would be inviting insult to yourself and doing damage to your self-respect to offer one then or at any time thereafter.

But time has changed, and the leadership of the Federal Military Government with it. It is, therefore, only fair that I should now, at this stage, make my candid views known on the above Ten- Point Programme, in the hope that what I have to say may shed some light on the ‘strait, narrow, hard pathway’ on which our young Rulers, under the leadership of Brigadier Mohammed, have, of their free calculated choice, elected to tread.

THE STRENGTH OF AN ARMY IS NOT IN ITS NUMBER BUT IN ITS DISCIPLINE

Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s opinion on the Reorganisation of the Nigerian Armed Forces as contained in his press statement of 18th August 1975.

The effectiveness of an Anny, as an offensive and defensive force, does not necessarily consist in the number of troops nor even essentially in superior weapons: it consists basically in its discipline, morale, and efficiency. If number were the decisive factor, Wellington would not have won the battle of Waterloo. Again, if number and superiority of weapons were the decisive factors, the State of Israel would never have come into being in 1948.

Nigeria now has the largest Army in Africa, South of the Sahara; and we spent 40 per cent of our total recurrent expenditure for 1975/76 on 270,000 men and women in army uniform. One question which must be asked, and asked persistently until a satisfactory answer is given is this: Against whom are we maintaining these large forces? It cannot be against our African neighbours: they have no aggressive designs against us, and they are not likely to have any against us in the future. It cannot be against any of the big powers or super-powers; against whom for sheer excellence in discipline, morale and efficiency coupled with infinite superiority in sophisticated weapons, we cannot have even the ghost of a chance in any military confrontation. As for the suppression of internal disorder, the ratio of ONE soldier to TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY Nigerians is much too much.

The reorganisation of the Army, as I understand it, must be a multi-faceted problem of discipline, morale and efficiency. Promotions, increases in pay, and the provision of decent barracks and modern weapons are certainly parts of the solution to the problem. But a drastic reduction in the number of our troops as well as the strengthening, retraining, and re-equipping of the remaining troops is also an essential part of reorganisation, and evidently more in keeping with our overall and long-term national interests.

Nobody advocates indiscriminate or hasty demobilisation or social redeployment of the members of the armed forces. Such redeployment must be well-planned, organised and phased. And no soldier must be made to leave the army until an alternative gainful employment of equivalent earning is found for him. The solution proposed here, therefore, is bound to take time. And, in my judgment, only a beginning can and ought to be made in the time at our disposal between now and the return to Civil Rule.

In 1970, after the declaration of the Nine-Point Programme, we had six clear years within which to initiate and accomplish the kind of rational reorganisation here suggested. But we stalled and procrastinated. However, it is never too late to do what is right and sensible; and, fortunately, the reorganisation of the Army is a job for military experts, and can be carried out under civilian auspices.

We were once told and I trust no one in the present ruling hierarchy ever shares that thoughtlessness, that the existing inordinate size of our Army was a guarantee against future coups.

Now, if the last coup in Nigeria and the one in Egypt in 1952 are anything to go by, then it can be said that the larger the Army, the neater, more classic, and more bloodless the coup. Provided the two indispensable antecedent ingredients of neat, bloodless coup are present: an utterly discredited leadership or regime, and a small cohesive group of officers dedicated to the national cause and general well-being.

THE ARMY CANNOT MOBILISE THE PEOPLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

From Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Press Statement of 18th August 1975

Two things puzzled Alhaji Yahaya Gusau and myself about the Second National Development Plan: why was four-year period chosen for the Plan, and why the attempt to push it through the Federal Executive Council, with what appeared to us as indecent haste.

Alhaji Gusau was the Commissioner in charge of Economic Development. But the memoranda on the Plan were issued and circulated behind his back under his initials. Besides, the first set of memoranda that were Circulated for consideration at a particular meeting of the Executive Council, were not only not in numerical sequence, but also even the first two chapters were not yet ready for circulation.

We knew later, as we had all along suspected, that the reason for the attempted rush was the desire to get the Plan ready for launching on 1st October, 1970, so as to give supporting pretext for prolonging army rule till 1976.

But, thanks to the resignation of Alhaji Yahaya Gusau, and the acceptance by General Gowon of my strenuous advice not to consider the plan piecemeal and in the irregular order in which the chapters had been issued, it was not possible to launch the Plan in October 1970.

The same sort of tactics is apparent from the timing of the pre-launching of the Third National Development Plan. It would appear that the preparation of the Plan had been deliberately delayed so that the launching of it might provide the needed pretext for prolonging army rule for an indefinite period. The long, boring dawn broadcast of 1st October, 1974, giving an elaborate but ill-digested outline of the Plan, six months before it was ready, was designed to achieve this end.

I have made these observations in order to show that the current Third National Development Plan, like its predecessor, had been conceived in deceit and launched in bad faith.

Apart from this, there are many other things which are wrong with the Plan. But this is not the place to detail and discuss such defects. It is enough, in the context of this statement to emphasise that it is none of the business of soldiers to assume the responsibility for formulating Development Plans for the people, and trying to implement them before handing power back to them.

One of the crucial factors for the success of a Development Plan is the conscientious and active involvement of the masses of the people, for whose benefit the Pan is made, at two decisive stages – the stage of formulation, and the level of implementation.

The Military, by their training, have neither the temper nor the organisation for mobilising the people with a view to evoking from them the required voluntary involvement. It is not even good, for their proficiency fwd the security of the fatherland, that they should have the temper and organisation requisite for this purpose.

What is expected of our present Military Rulers, therefore, is that during the comparatively short time that they will be in the governmental saddle, they should do all they can to implement such portions of our ill-conceived Third National Development Plan as fall within their tenure of office.

It is, decidedly, not in the national interest that they should regard the full implementation of the Plan as part of the conditions precedent to handing over power to civilians.

The truth is that in this type of matters, the politicians, whatever their faults may be, are, other things being equal, better qualified than any other professional groups or classes of people in the country to ensure the voluntary involvement of our people wherever they may live, and whatever their individual status in life.

HOW THE MILITARY REGIME FAILED TO ERADICATE CORRUPTION IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE

The Third Chapter of a press release issued by Chief Obafemi Awolowo on 18th August 1975

When this subject was mentioned to me by General Yakubu Gowon, I immediately thought that the Military regime which he represented was not being honest with itself let alone with the people of Nigeria on whom it planned to impose ‘eradication of corruption’ as a condition precedent to the restoration of their political birthright.

It will, I believe, be generally agreed that ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION from any society is not just a difficult task: it is, without dispute, an impossible objective. I, therefore, concluded in my mind, there and then, that the Nigerian Military had no intention of ever handing over power to the civilians.

I must confess that, at the time, I entertained the impression that, whilst General Gowon might be willing to hand over power to civilians, there were powerful elements within and outside the Army who were striving their utmost to persuade him to remain indefinitely at the helm.

Having said this much, I hope that our present rulers will remove ‘ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE’ from whatever conditions precedent they may wish to impose for return to civilian rule.

As far as we all know, it was within the power of the last Military regime to reduce considerably the scale and demonstration effect of corruption as it existed under the previous civilian administration. As a matter of fact, they appeared to have started well: various Tribunals of Inquiry were set up. These Tribunals did their work with competence, thoroughness and despatch. Their Reports were submitted and received with fanfare and publicity. Then there was a long lull. The prevailing Civil War was used as a pretext for the undue delay in considering the Reports and taking decisions on them.

Anyway, in the end the Reports were considered by the Federal Executive Council, and White Papers, setting out Government’s decisions, were published. But there the journey ended. Up till today, none of the courses of action ‘contained in the White Papers has been followed. And because of the notorious and unabashed inaction of the Federal Military Government in applying the various salutary, corrective, and deterrent sanctions recommended by the Tribunals and accepted by the ‘Government, corruption had not only flourished, but also had almost become an accepted way of life in our society. Indeed, our country reached a pass, in recent months, when the brazenly corrupt went scot-free and were extolled for their virtue, whilst those who attempted to expose them were ruthlessly suppressed and punished.

There are two things, therefore, which the present Military regime must aim to do with speed, thoroughness and firmness before it hands over power to the civilian in the near future.

Firstly, it must very quickly repair the enormous damage which the Military regime under its former leadership had done to its own image by appearing openly to condone corruption in high and medium places. It can do this easily by executing the decisions in the various White Papers already referred to.

Secondly, it can and must do all in its power to reduce the present scale and brazenness of corruption by means of exemplary deterrents. This also is not going to be a very difficult undertaking.

For, fortunately for our present Rulers, during the past four years or so, corruption had been indulged in with such openness and undisguised shamelessness that the perpetrators as well as their loots can be easily identified.

A quick look at the Victoria Island; and examination of the processes by which certain Government industrial and commercial projects were negotiated, established or operated; an investigation into the structure of shareholdings in contracting, construction, architectural, engineering and other companies or firms owned by aliens before indigenisation; another quick look at the contracts awarded or in the process of being awarded in connection with the postponed Second World Black Festival of the Arts, especially those concerning the supply of furniture and of victuals said to be worth £N90 million and £N40 million respectively; a hard look at the various activities and operations of the Petroleum and Energy Departments, Divisions, or Corporations of the Government; and an equally hard look at the farms, plantations, poultries. piggries, and other ventures said to have been developed with government resources for the benefit of certain individuals; all these alone, without more, may yield valuable results which will serve as pointers to the manner in which this social malady should be dealt with in the present and effectively deterred in the future.

If the present Military regime can do these exercises with despatch, and relieve anyone, who may be found to have abused and misused his office, of his ill-gotten wealth and property, it would have done well for the improvement of its image, and for creating an atmosphere conducive to public probity in the next civilian administration.

TO RETURN NIGERIA TO A HAPPY AND PEACEFUL CIVILIAN RULE

Part of Chief Obafemi Awolowo;’s press release of 18th August 1975.

Alhaji Aminu Kano struck the nail right on the head in his recent statement on the programme and time-table for return to civilian rule. I am in substantial agreement with him, except for one point of departure which I will mention under Section IX below.

If we are to do better than our old colonial masters, we must regard the making of a new Constitution as the exclusive and sacred preserve of a Constituent Assembly duly and freely elected by the people of this country under a system of universal adult suffrage.

It would be a deprivation of the people’s legitimate right, if the members of the Assembly were nominated by the Governors or the Supreme Military Council. And the Constitution produced by such a hand-picked body will decidedly not be the people’s constitution. Even under our colonial masters, the Constitutions of 1950, 1954, 1957 and 1958 were made largely by the duly elected representatives of the people of Nigeria. The same thing goes for the 1963 Republican Constitution.

The sum and substance of all this is that the Supreme Military Council will be acting wisely and in the long-term interest of our fatherland, if it entrusts the making of our new Constitution to a duly elected Constituent Assembly.

As a helpful preliminary step, the Supreme Military Council should set up a Basic Principles Committee whose duty would be to formulate basic principles for our future Constitution. The basic principles so formulated would then go to the Federal Ministry of Justice for translation into the language of a Bill. Both the Basic Principles and the Draft Bill would eventually go to the Constituent Assembly for consideration. The Constituent Assembly should be given adequate but limited time within which to complete its work on the new Constitution. Six months should be quite ample.

After its election, the Constituent Assembly would perform all the functions of the Federal Parliament. The leader of the majority party would form a Government which would administer the affairs of the Federation. For the duration of Constitution-making, however, it would be prudent for whoever is the Prime Minister to give representation in his Cabinet to all the parties who have seats in the Federal Parliament.

After the promulgation of the Constitution, the Prime Minister should be free to reconstitute his Cabinet. Within three months after the enactment of the new Constitution, elections into the Houses of Assembly in the States should be held. In the interim before State elections, each State would be administered by a civilian Governor and a Cabinet of Civilian Ministers who would be appointed by the Military Head of State on the advice of the Federal Council of Ministers.

The Constituent Assembly does not need to dissolve itself after concluding its work on the Constitution. But if the Constitution makes provision for an elected executive President, then his election should also take place within three months of the promulgation of the new Constitution. The Military Head of State would be functus officio on the promulgation of the new Constitution.

There are unique advantages in holding elections into the Constituent Assembly before State elections. For one thing this arrangement would contribute towards the emergence of truly nationwide parties: every newly-formed political party would concentrate its energy on securing seats in the Federal Parliament, instead of striving to limit its sway to State Assemblies. For another, and as a result, the best men and women in the country who want to take part in politics would be obliged to vie for participation at the Federal level. It is only the dropouts among them who, unwilling to wait for the next round of bout at the Federal elections, might want to have another try at the subsequent State elections.

In other words, this arrangement would redound to the strength of the Federal Government, and enable it to hold its own as the First or Number One Government in the land.

1. ELECTIONS AND INSTALLATION OF, etc, etc.

This item in Gowon’s Nine-Point Programme envisages the simultaneous holding of elections into Federal and State Parliaments, and the preparation of the new Constitution by a nominated ‘Constituent Assembly’. It will be seen from my remarks under Item V, however, that Alhaji Aminu Kano’s point of view and mine do not favour these kinds of arrangement.

Under Section V above, I gave a hint of one point of departure from Alhaji Aminu’s timetable. With due deference to him, I prefer February or March 1977 to October 1976 for the transfer of power to the newly elected Constituent Assembly, for two reasons.

In the first place, registration of voters is an elaborate, difficult and time-consuming process. You begin by actual registration of voters, followed by the printing and display of Preliminary Voters’ List, followed again by Claims and Objections, followed yet again by the printing and publication of the Final Voters’ List. If we do not give ourselves ample time for these exercises, there are chances of regrettable failure somewhere along the line. And if such failure occurred, it is the political parties who alone would bear the chagrin, not the Military.

In the second place, past experiences have shown that the most effective time for electioneering campaign in this country is the dry season which is at its best throughout the country in the months of December to March.

If this is agreed, then, having regard to the time needed for registration of voters etc., the earliest time when elections could be held is the months of December 1976 and January to March 1977.

On purely religious grounds; many people would not be keen on a December election; but any time from the middle of January to the last week of February 1977 would be ideal. The ceremony for the inauguration of the Constituent Assembly and the formal transfer of power to civilians can then take place in March 1977.

A date longer than this would arouse deep suspicion, and detract from the goodwill which the Military now enjoy among our people.

In closing this press statement, I want to address my final remarks to two classes of Nigerians.

The first are those who desire to participate in the politics of the future.

Whatever the differences of opinion on ideological or other grounds, I feel sure that it is common ground that the return to civilian rule as well as the conduct of that rule should take place and be carried on in circumstances and atmosphere in which democracy will have a good chance of firmly entrenching itself, and enduring in a United Nigeria free from inter-party, inter-ethnic and inter-personal bitterness, under a Constitution which provides for a peaceful change of government, and for safeguards against the abuse of power.

Before ban on political activities is lifted, aspiring politicians must realise one thing, and do so vividly. After nine years of military rule, it is natural for some Army Officers to have developed such a fondness for public offices as to stimulate in them a nostalgia and animus revertendi for these offices, after return to civilian rule has taken place.

It will be the bounden duty of all aspiring politicians, therefore, before and after actual return to civilian rule, to conduct their electioneering and governmental affairs in such a manner as to help such Officers to throttle their natural but socially dangerous inclination to regain political power.

To this end, politicians must regard the time before the actual handing over of power, and FIVE YEARS thereafter as a POLITICO-PROBATIONARY PERIOD.

Immediately ban on political activities is lifted, those who aspire to organise political parties must meet to draw up a comprehensive Code of Conduct for Electioneering. The overriding aim should be to eliminate vulgarity, bitterness, and hooliganism of any kind from political campaigning.

They should also jointly formulate, for submission to the Supreme Military Council, proposals for providing funds and controlling expenditure during electioneering campaigns and after. In this connection, I would like to think aloud for the benefit of those who may wish to give this particular issue some thoughts between now and the lifting of ban on political activities.

It is my considered view that Nigeria should invest heavily in democracy. If this is agreed – and here comes the thinking aloud – it is my suggestion that in the matter of provision of funds for electioneering and for running the affairs of a party generally, the Federal Government should be prepared to give generous subventions to political parties. This is the practice in Western Germany, and I commend it to the serious study of all concerned.

What they do in Western Germany is this. At the close of elections, so much Deutsch Mark per vote is paid by the Government to every political party for the total number of votes cast for that party. Before electioneering, an estimated amount is paid to each party, subject to a refund being made to Government in the event of a party not scoring enough votes to earn the advance given to it.

In the Nigerian context, it may be desirable-to modify the German model somewhat. Giving advance to a party may encourage fraud and a frightful multitude of mushroom parties. It may be advisable, therefore, not to give any advance; and even after elections, only a party which has scored 10 PER CENT OR MORE OF THE TOTAL VOTES CAST AT FEDERAL OR STATE ELECTIONS SHOULD QUALIFY FOR SUBVENTION. A formula such as this will decidedly discourage ethnic or tribal parties, and positively encourage country-wide parties.

I am still thinking aloud; and another thought which I would like to leave with aspiring politicians is this.

Professor Arthur Lewis, the eminent economist, has said that one of the things that bedevil African politics is the practice of the ‘WINNER TAKES ALL’. He is quite correct in his diagnosis; but I do not share his sweeping remedy which amounts to the adoption of one-party system or the formation of a National Government at all times.

I favour the multi-party system, and the formation of the Government by the victorious party or alliance of parties. But I think that it is in the national interest or in the interest of whichever party may be in power that, DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF POLITICO-PROBATIONARY PERIOD AFTER RETURN TO CIVIL RULE, ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES WHO HAVE SEATS IN THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT OR HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE EXTRA-CABINET ACTIVITIES OF OUR GOVERNMENTS.

By this I mean, in more specific terms, that every party with  seats in the Houses of Parliament and Assembly should be represented on every Organ of Government, including Governing Boards, Corporations, State-owned Companies, Parliamentary Committees, Government-sponsored Delegations, etc., in proportion to the number of votes scored by such party at the immediately preceding election; The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee should be a nominee of the Party in Opposition.

Those who care to give this formula any thought would see the tremendous advantages it has in the elimination post-election rancour and in fostering the spirit of healthy co-operation between Government and Opposition.

The second class of people to which I want to address the concluding, part of these final remarks are our Military Rulers.

At these initial stages of their accession to power, I would urge them to bear in mind, constantly and scrupulously, that there is such a cancerous and fatal disease in public life known as TENACITY OF OFFICE. I had defined this malady in my speech at Ife on 6th July, 1974, as follows:

‘TENACITY OF OFFICE IS A POLITICAL MONSTROSITY WHOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE AN INORDINATE AND SHAMELESS LOVE OF POWER FOR ITS OWN SAKE, AND A MORBID TENACITY FOR PUBLIC OFFICE EVEN WHEN ALL THE LEGITIMACY FOR CONTINUING IN SUCH PUBLIC OFFICE HAS COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED.’

I have tried, over the years, to identity the viruses which induce the affliction of this disease, and also favour its rapid growth. I itemise my results so far, as follows:

1)            the assumption by office holders of superiority over the rest of the populace whom they serve, including their compeers and betters in every respect, by the use of police or military outriders as well as the blowing of sirens to the further disruption of an already disorganised traffic, and to the inconvenience of road users;

2)            the description of a Governor as ‘his excellency’ or ‘H.E.’ in and out of season, quite outside the bounds of strictly formal occasions; the wife is even sometimes addressed as ‘Her Excellency’ in public, and as ‘Mrs H.E.’ in private conversations; in the United States, the Americans address Mr. Ford either as ‘Mr. President’ or as ‘President Ford’;

3)            the description of a woman who yesterday was a humble and dutiful housewife, and co-breadwinner with her husband, as FIRST LADY, simply because as a result of the changing and impermanent vicissitudes of public life, the husband happens, today, to be Head of State or Governor; the younger the woman, the more easily she and her husband succumb to the attack of this virus;

4)            moving in a heady sort of flight from the unostentatious dwelling of an Officer in the Armed Forces or of a private citizen to a State House luxuriously furnished and located in the most exclusive part of the Government reservation – a reservation which, be it remembered, came into being as a result of colour and racial discrimination, by our former Colonial Masters, towards their oppressed and derided subjects; a State House should be reserved for an elected President or Governor who knows, from the very beginning of his assumption of office, that his days are numbered;

5)            the provision of official quarters and of official vehicles for personal use for Ministers or civilian Commissioners, and the description of a Minister or Commissioner or Member of the Federal Parliament or House of Assembly as ‘HONOURABLE’, even though, well-known to the people, he is very ‘DISHONOURABLE’ by every objective standard;

6)            the constant use by a Head of Government as distinct from a Head of State of the phrase ‘MY GOVERNMENT’, as if the ‘GOVERNMENT’ is his private property.

All these things, among others, must be scrupulously eschewed: they are poisonous, dangerous, and induce the fell and fatal political disease of TENACITY OF OFFICE. Where possible, they should be removed from our body politic by means of Government Proclamations and Enactments.

CASE FOR THE CREATION OF STATES ON LINGUISTIC BASES

Chapter Four of Chief Obafemi Awolowo S press release of 18th August, 1975.

1. CREATION OF MORE STATES

It would appear that the majority of our leaders and opinion-makers now agree – at any rate they pay eloquent lip-service to the concept – that the ideal Constitution for Nigeria is a Federal Constitution. But not all those who advocate a Federal Constitution for Nigeria know or even care to know the meaning and full implications of Federalism, both in theory and practice.

It is not my intention here to embark on the old but persistent, though not now often articulated, points of controversy on this subject. But there are certain issues of basic principles which must be mentioned here for the benefit of all of us including, especially, the Irikefe Committee on New States, and the Supreme Military Council which, for the time being, is the final arbiter of this vexed problem.

The first point to bear in mind is that a Federal State is a Composite State in which the supreme legislative power or functions are divided between the Central Authority on the one hand, and the Regional (State) Authorities on the other, in such a manner as to make the Central and State Authorities co-ordinate with and independent of one another in the discharge of their respective functions.

In this connection, our present Constitution is, in principle, an ideal Federal Constitution. It sets out a list of subjects which are exclusively reserved for the Central Authority, and leaves all other residual subjects not contained in the Federal list as matters within the exclusive competence of the States.

Under the military dispensation, however, apart from significant increase in the list of exclusive Federal subjects and of matters on the concurrent list, it is difficult to say that, in practice, the Central and State Authorities in Nigeria are independent of and co-ordinate with one another in the discharge of their respective functions.

Indeed, it appears to me that the system we are now operating is a Unitary Constitution with heavy devolution of functions to the so-called State Authorities which are becoming more and more Provincial Authorities, with Governors a little higher in administrative status than the French Prefects. In the context of Nigeria, this kind of arrangement has very little chance of success under a civilian setting. With politics at its best, it would groan poignantly; and, at its worst, it would suffer nervous breakdown.

The second point to bear in mind is that there are fundamental principles which are deducible from the empirical processes and attendant turmoil of constitution-making all over the world.

I state them in the following tenus:

1)            If a country is uni-lingual and uni-national, the constitution must be Unitary.

2)            If a country is uni-lingual or bi-lingual or multi-lingual, and also consists of communities which, though belonging to the same nation, have, over a period of years, developed some important cultural divergences as well as autonomous geographical and political separateness, the constitution must be Federal, and the constituent States must be organised on the dual basis of language and geographical separateness.

3)            If a country is bi-lingual or multi-lingual, the constitution must be Federal, and the constituent States must be organised on a linguistic basis.

4)            Any experiment with a Unitary constitution in a bi-lingual or multi-lingual or multi-national country must fail, in the long run.

I vouch for the soundness and universal applicability of these principles. But a good deal of study and investigation is required in applying any of the first three in tackling the constitutional problem of any given country.

I do make the claim that, after a long and sustained study and research, I know Nigeria and its peoples fairly intimately; and the conclusion to which this knowledge leads me is that of the four constitutional principles enunciated above, it is the third one that is applicable to Nigeria.

I believe we all know and’ agree, for instance, that the Ibo, Hausa, Yoruba, Edo or Kanuri is a uni-lingual group with many dialects. If this is so, then each of these linguistic groups should be constituted into one State; unless, of course, it can be objectively established that, over the years, the Yoruba or Ibo or any of them has developed IMPORTANT CULTURAL DIVERGENCES AS WELL AS AUTONOMOUS POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATENESS. In other words, if these divergences and separateness do in fact exist among any linguistic group, then a good case will have been made out for the breaking up of such linguistic group along THE ASCERTAINED LINES OF CULTURAL DIVERGENCES AND AUTONOMOUS POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SEPARATENESS.

I have never claimed and do not now claim anything more than scientific validity for the linguistic principle applied to the creation of States. The principle has tremendous merits: it enjoys empirical vindication and approval (Vide the USSR, Switzerland, India, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia where the principle has been applied; and Spain, the United Kingdom, and Belgium where failure to apply the principle has led to much violence and turmoil); it is certain in its application and predictable in its results; it alone is capable of eliminating agitation for the creation of a new State on purely subjective and rationalised personal grounds; and above all, it makes for permanency in the number as well as in the boundaries of States in any given country.

It has been suggested of late that if this principle were accepted, Nigeria would be landed with 200 States. I do not know how this figure is arrived at. If it is supposed to represent the number of tribal or dialect groups in Nigeria, then it is grossly understated. If, in the other hand, it is meant to give the number of linguistic groups In the country, then it is grossly exaggerated.

In this connection, I would like to invite attention to the 1952 Census Report which gives the number and identity of FIFTY-ONE linguistic groups in the country as follows:

MAJOR LINGUISTIC GROUPS:

1)            Hausa/Fulani

2)            Yoruba

3)            Ibo

4)            Efik/lbibiol Annang

5)            Kanuri

6)            Tiv

7)            Ijaw

8)            Edo

9)            Urhobo

10) Nupe

OTHER LINGUISTIC GROUPS:      PROVINCE:

11)          Boki                                                       Ogoja

12)          Ekri- Yakurr                                         “

13)          Nbembe                                              “

14)          Obanliks                                               “

15)          Ukelle                                                   “

16)          Yala                                                        “

17)          Abuah                                                   Rivers

18)          Ngenni                                                                 “

19)          Ogoni                                                    “

20)          Bassa                                                     Benue

21)          Egedde                                                                 “

22)          Gwari                                                    “

23)          Idoma                                                   “

24)          Kutev                                                    “

25)          Babur                                                    Bornu

26)          Beddawa                                             “

27)          Bura                                                       “

28)          Shuwa Arab                                        “

29)          Borgawa                                              Ilorin

30)          Bussawa                                              “

31)          Bassa-Komo                                       Kabba

32)          Gwari                                                    “

33)          Igala                                                       “

34)          Igbirra                                                   “

35)          Karnberi                                               “

36)          Owe                                                      “

37)          Magazawa                                          Kano

38)          Dak-Akerri                                          Niger

39)          Dukawa                                                “

40)          Gwari                                                    “

41)          Kamberi                                               “

42)          Kamuka                                                “

43)          Angas                                                    Plateau

44)          Birom                                                    “

45)          Eggon                                                    “

46)          Sura                                                       “

47)          Yergum                                                “

48)          Adarawa                                              Sokoto

49)          Arawa                                                   “

50)          Zabirma                                                “

51)          Gwari                                                    “

52)          Jaba                                                       “

53)          Kadara                                                  Zaria

54)          Kaje                                                       “

55)          Kataba                                                  “

(NOTE:) The Gwaris are minorities in four States, and the Kamberis in two; the Ijaws are a minority only in the Midwest State).

This is the list of the 51 linguistic groups about which I have written in some of my books and statements, NOT of tribal or dialect groups. I am sure it will interest many people including myself to have a list of the 200 ethnic or linguistic groups about which we have, again and again, been told, and the parts of the country in which they live.

It is clear, therefore, that under the linguistic principle, the number of States in the country cannot in the long run exceed 51. Having regard to the size and wealth of the country, this should not, by any manner of means be a worrying prospect. In the meantime, however, I have advocated eighteen States, simply because, from my knowledge of the minorities, I had thought that most of them would not be viable. And viability, in my considered view, is a matter of administrative relativity. Consequently, I have grouped together minorities which are geographically contiguous, and which, I believe, being together, would be administratively viable, and free from the fear of majority ethnic domination.

Those who advocate the creation of States only on the ‘principles’ of GEOGRAPHICAL CONTIGUITY, ECONOMIC VIABILITY and the like, are risking uncontrollable proliferation of States in the country. In the long-run we might find ourselves having to cope with well over 200 States. Perhaps this large number wouldn’t matter now since States are, in any case, fast becoming Provincial Units or inflated Local Councils.

When all these have been said, however, the STARK REALITY remains that on this issue of new States, many Nigerians just cannot be bothered about scientific principles. ‘Politics’ they contend, and quite rightly, ‘is the art of the possible’. So that whilst political ideals must remain the goal of action for those who believe in them, the reality of every situation and epoch must, in practical terms, be given due recognition when absolutely necessary.

The naked truth about the position in Nigeria now is that, because of a number of factors mainly subjective and emotional, partly environmental and historical, and to not a little extent personal, many leaders in Nigeria are implacably bent on having the territories of their birth carved out as separate States.

From purely pragmatic and realistic points of view, therefore, and because I believe that disillusionment awaits the protagonists in the not distant future, I THINK THAT EVERY GROUP WHICH ASKS FOR A STATE SHOULD BE GIVEN. SO FAR AS CAN BE JUDGED FROM THE MEMORANDA WHICH HAVE REACHED MY HANDS, MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, NO ONE HAS UNREASONABLY ASKED.

To give to some, and deny to others, on grounds which are not

dictated by objective and generally accepted principles; to approve the creation of Kanuri State and deny that of Kwararafa; to approve Yoruba Eastern, and deny Wawa; to approve Bauchi State and deny Calabar-Ogoja-Ikom State; to do any of these and, withal, to refuse to merge the Ijaws of the Midwest with those of the Rivers as well as leave the Gwaris and Kamberis scattered in four States and two States respectively, would be to give gratuitous and unmerited joy to some, and cause avoidable grief to others who are equally deserving. In any case, it must be borne in mind that the creation of new States now, will only serve as an invitation and encouragement to others to demand their own separate States in the very near future.

In closing my observations on this topic, I would like to make two brief points.

Firstly, I would like to invite the close attention of the Irikefe Committee and the Supreme Military Council to the memorandum of the Itsekiri Community, published in the Daily Times, asking for Itsekiriland to be made an Autonomous Province within the Midwest State. Short of a full-fledged State for every minority group, and short of grouping such minorities together into separate States of their own, the Itsekiri formula is, in my view, the answer to the fears of linguistic minorities throughout the country. All those concerned should carefully study this formula as well as the Constitutions of the USSR and Yugoslavia with special reference to the provisions for minorities.

Secondly, the present Federal Military Government should not allow itself to be bogged down by any controversy or problems arising from the immediate creation of States, to the extent that such controversy or problems would be used as a pretext for delaying the return to civilian rule. To do this would not be in the national interest, and would surely and totally destroy the raison d’etre of the last coup as our people see it.

THE NEW FEDERAL CAPITAL IN ABUJA AND THE OLD CITY OF LAGOS

From Chief Obafemi Awolowo s press release of 18th August, 1975.

The deficiencies of Lagos as Federal Capital have been stated and commented upon in the newspapers almost ad nauseam, and I do not want to repeat or contradict them. But there are some salient points to which I wish to direct my observations, partly as a contribution to the general debate on the subject; and partly for the consideration of the Aguda Committee and the Supreme Military Council.

Firstly, it must be borne in mind that the type of modern Capital we have been talking about takes a long time to plan and construct. There must be detailed survey of the area chosen; layout, designs and models must be prepared for exhaustive discussions at technical and political levels. After all the spade work has been done, tender documents must be prepared for the various segments of the Capital, and invitation to tender must be extended to contractors all over the world. I reckon that the planning of the new Capital up to the awards of contracts would take between FIVE to SEVEN years, unless of course we want to make a hash of what is conceived as a lofty project. The actual construction would take another FIVE to SEVEN years.

In any case, whatever we do about this question of new Capital, we must not encourage the Military to embark on any aspect of its planning. We should seek to limit their participation in this matter to a quick decision on the Aguda Committee’s Report. The actual implementation of that Report should be left to a future civilian Administration.

Secondly, whilst the planning as well as the construction of a new Capital is in progress, it will be our duty to make Lagos more habitable and presentable. In ten or more years from now, and taking into account the rate at which Lagos roads are being improved and at which modern buildings and industries are springing up all over the place, we might find ourselves completely frustrated at the end of the journey. We would have the new Capital of our dreams: ultramodern, superlatively prestigious, and all the rest of it; but the old Capital would have been transformed and would be pulsating with more liveliness, gaiety and business-as-usual than the new.

Someone has referred to the prevalence of immorality in Lagos as one of the factors which disqualify it from continuing as the country’s Capital. He did not elaborate. But I have no doubt that what he had in mind was the existence of Night Clubs, Gaming and Pools Houses, Brothels, and the comparative super-abundance of prostitutes and women of easy virtue in Lagos.

If one may be brutally frank without being offensive, the truth is that, from the beginning of time, it is these things which, abhorrent as they have always been to the Saints, make life worth living for the vast majority of human beings. They constitute e socio-gravitational pull even to those who live outside the borders of where they abound. Hence the annual pilgrimage, by many who an afford it, to London, Paris, Tokyo, Madrid, Monte Carlo and Las Palmas, to mention a few cities where these things exist in bounteous plentitude.

For almost a century, Lagos has developed this pull. And in the future, because of its position as a major port, and of the concentration of industries, commerce, and comparatively affluent population in and around it, its socio-gravitational pull will increase rather than diminish.

There are only two ways of reducing this pull: to canalise the Atlantic Ocean to the new Capital wherever it is situated, and to move the industries, Night Clubs, the entire population of prostitutes, etc., to the new site; or as an alternative to the latter, to create new brands of these factors in the new Capital. The one is impossible; the other would be almost insuperably obstructed by all the known factors of immobility of human beings and of industries and commerce. In any event, it will take many years to develop new brands, especially in the face of the constant pull of Lagos.

The result, therefore, will be that, when we move our Capital to the new site, the majority of our Ministers, Civil Servants in the senior and intermediate categories, and top employees of businesses and services established in the new Capital, will see to it that they spend their weekends and holidays in Lagos. Those in the junior categories will be unhappy because they cannot afford the expense of imitating their more prosperous fellow-workers.

There is a further complication. Ecologically, it will take some years for all those, other than the natives of the area, who are moved to the new site, to settle down and adjust themselves to their new environment.

The net result of all these is that, during the first few years in the new Capital, general efficiency would decline.

Thirdly, moving the entire government personnel from the old to the new Capital would involve logistics problems of tremendous and complex magnitude which would take months to surmount. The longer the distance of the new Capital from the old, the greater the magnitude. Conversely, the shorter the distance, the less. In addition, the transfer to the new site is sure to involve extensive disclocation of governmental activities.

Chief Kola Balogun has suggested nearness to a port as one of the factors to be considered in locating a new site. I agree with him; and merely want to add that, having regard to all the factors which I have discussed above, and, in particular, in order to minimise dislocation of governmental business, the new Capital should be as near to the Lagos port as possible.

Fourthly, the conclusion to which my reasoning leads me is that Lagos should be allowed to continue to be the Federal Capital. I Conjecture, and insist on being proved wrong, that the cost of removing the alleged deficiencies of Lagos – clearing the slums and widening the roads – will be far less than the cost of building a new Capital and overcoming the concomitant problems. In this connection, it is suggested that the Lagos State Government should move its Capital out of Lagos to Ikorodu and seek to establish a greater Lagos there.

Alternatively, the new Capital should be located as near to Lagos as possible. A maximum distance of 25 miles will be ideal. And in order to facilitate response to the socio-gravitational pull of Lagos, and minimise the logistics problem of moving to the new site, the new Capital should be linked with Lagos by a first-class express highway of not less than SIX LANES.

The site I have in mind is between Agege and Ifo. Those who advocate Kafanchan or Kaduna should remember that there are many areas between Lagos and Kafanchan or Kaduna which are equally suitable, and which, because they are nearer to Lagos present less intractable problems.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AMONG THE THREE ARMS OF GOVERNMENT

From the address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria to the Second Annual Conference of the Oyo State Branch of the UPN on Saturday, 8th November, 1980.

Since 1st October, 1979, an unsavoury situation has emerged.

The relationship between the Legislature and the Executive, at the Federal level and in most States has, at the worst, been embittered, and, at the very least, not as cordial as it should be.

Under our Constitution the three organs of Government are separate and distinct both in respect of the functions which they perform, and of the functionaries who are entrusted with the performance of those functions. In other words, under our Constitution, no government functionary belongs to more than one organ, and none performs the functions of more than one organ. This is one of the three well-known forms of separation of powers, and, functionally, the neatest of them all.

The other two may be mentioned in passing. Though a set of public functionaries are members both of the Legislature and the Executive, yet there is separation of powers, as long as neither the Legislature nor the Executive performs the functions of the other. This is the form of separation of powers under the so-called parliamentary system of Government. There is also separation of powers in the solitary British instance of one functionary (the Lord Chancellor) belonging to all the three organs of Government, and at the same time remaining independent and separate in the exercise of each of his triunal functions. Ironically enough, Montesquieu, the first political philosopher to propound the principle of separation of powers, and to classify governmental powers into Legislative, executive, an judicial, drew inspiration for his famous theory from Britain’s unique parliamentary system.

Our own form of separation of powers is fashioned after the American system. The ideal of this system is the provision of effective checks and balances in the governmental structure itself. By the adoption of this form, absolutism or oligarchy of any kind is outlawed; true democracy is entrenched and manifestly seen to be entrenched in the Constitution. In other words, each of the three organs is obligated to keep within and guard its bounds of authority. In this kind of arrangement or its agence. In its role as outlined, the Judiciary is not abused, or excessive or arbitrary use of power by anyone organ.

But does this all mean that each must operate in a water-right compartment regardless of consideration for each of the other two? This is the big question. And the exhibition which we have witnessed since October 1979 clearly suggests that the answer which most legislators appear to give to the question is in the affirmative. At this threshold of our second year of the new democratic experiment, it is essential for the survival of the new system and of democracy that we should examine carefully, and pronounce wisely on, what should be the proper relationship between the Legislature and the Executive. Otherwise, if the present trend persisted, the Legislature and the Executive would sooner than later grind to a miserable disarray in their disparate and antithetic activities, with disastrous consequences to the trusting masses whom we vow to serve.

We must get it quite clear in our minds that, of the three organs, the Judiciary is sui generis. In a democratic society, the Judiciary is the fountain from which the preservation of law and order flows: for wherever there is no justice, anarchy and self-redress tend to prevail. The Judiciary is the adjudicator in all matters that may be brought before it, be they between individuals, between individual and Government at any level, or between Government and Government. It has a bounded duty, if so called upon, to declare, in no uncertain or ambiguous terms, against any legislative or executive abuse, misuse, or excessive use of power, and also against any violation of the law by any individual or Government or organ of Government or its agency. In its role as outlined, the Judiciary is not expected, under the Constitution, to collaborate with any of the other two organs. Indeed, it is expected to be detached, independent, impartial, honest, and absolutely fearless in the discharge of its duties which are universally held to be grave and sacred. Whether the Judiciary in Nigeria, with particular reference to the Supreme Court as at present composed, can be said to be or capable of being independent, honest, impartial and fearless in the discharge of its sacred and hollowed duties is another matter on which I propose to speak at some length next December. IN THE MEANTIME, HOWEVER, I MUST SAY THAT, SO FAR, ITWOULD APPEAR THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BENCH BELOW THE SUPREME COURT ARE UPHOLDING THE BEST JUDICIAL TRADITIONS, WITH CREDIT TO THEIR SECTION OF THE BENCH, AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO PEACE AND ORDER IN OUR SOCIETY.

Whilst the Judiciary must be detached and independent from the other two organs, and be manifestly seen to be so, the Legislature and the Executive must work in close and harmonious collaboration with each other, if the welfare of the people is to be truly and effectively served.

It is the sole responsibility of the Executive to govern and administer the territory under its charge for the benefit of the people therein. To this end, it must initiate policies and programmes, and mobilise all the means at its disposal for their implementation and execution. In discharging its responsibilities, the Executive acts in its unfettered discretion, but within the bounds circumscribed by the Constitution. If it exceeds those bounds or infringes the law, and there is complaint to that effect, the Judiciary must so pronounce with a view to curbing the excess or infraction complained of.

On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the Legislature to give legally-binding effect and authority to the policies and programmes of the Executive, whenever called upon to do so by the latter. In the exercise of this function, the Legislature has to satisfy itself, in its own independent judgement, that any given policy or programme is in the best interests of the people, and intra vires its constitutional powers. Once in a while, on the motion of one or more of its Members, the Legislature may make laws which will have the effect of laying down policies and programmes which the Executive would be bound to implement and execute. In the discharge of its duties, if the Legislature exceeds its bounds, the judiciary may be called upon to adjudicate.

It is quite clear that the objective of the legislature and the Executive are one and the same – to promote and serve the best interests of the people. If they work at cross-purposes, or refuse to co-operate and collaborate with each other, the interests of the people would be seriously endangered. This point is reinforced or; the ground of plain common sense. When two persons or agencies are charged with joint responsibility to achieve a common objective, the two of them must co-operate harmoniously with each other. In the pursuit of their common objective, the two of them must constantly seek a consensus; or, in the event of disagreement, one of the two must be allowed to have the last say. If each of the two, in the absence of consensus, claims the right of last say, then, the common objective will either be unattainable, or be very slow of attainment.

ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE PARTY OVER ITS MEMBERS

From the address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo to the Oyo State Conference of the Unity Party of Nigeria on Saturday, 8th November, 1980.

The questions now are: On what forum do the Legislature and the Executive conduct their debate with a view to arriving at a consensus? And, in the event of an unresolvable disagreement between the two, which must have the final say? We must appeal to the Constitution for answers to these questions.

The first point to note is that, under our Constitution, the Legislature has the final say in the making of laws, By its enactments, it can, as the dictum goes, make A WOMAN, MAN, and vice-versa. Indeed, in the language of the Statutes MASCULINE GENDER always includes the FEMININE, unless the contrary is expressly stated. It can be seen that subject to judicial intervention, the Legislature is absolute” within its domain.

The second point to note is that, under the Constitution, the Executive has the final say in the implementation and execution of policies and programmes. To these ends, it has absolute charge over all the Government’s administrative and executive personnel. It controls all the law-enforcement agencies as well as all the actual and potential instruments for demanding obeisance and for compelling compliance with any law. The Legislature has none of these things. It follows that, unless there is a meeting of minds at some stage between both the Legislature and the Executive, the former may make laws which are veritable dead letters from the moment of enactment, whilst the latter may find it almost impossible to give legal effect to its policies and programmes.

The third point to note is that our Constitution lays down ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’ which both the Legislature and the Executive are called upon strictly to observe in the exercise of their respective functions. It follows that, though each of the Legislature and the Executive has the final say in its allotted separate domain of powers, yet both are enjoined to pursue common goals in the best interest of the people they serve. As to social goals, therefore, there can be no disparate legislative or executive viewpoints. The touchstones for social objectives are already indisputably and inexorably laid down in Chapter 11 of our Constitution. But as to methods of attaining the common goals, there is plenty of room to manoeuvre, and hence for operational conflict and antithesis.

The fourth and final point to note is that, as regards the Legislature and the Executive, our Constitution recognises only a Registered Political Party, and not the individual members of the Party. Members of the Legislature and the Chief Executive of any Government are, in the first place, candidates of the Registered Political Parties; and, in the second place, in the case of those elected into the Legislature, enjoined by the Constitution, under pain of severe sanction, to remain loyal to the registered Party which sponsored their election. It is the Registered Political Party alone which has authority to canvass for them to be elected. And any member of the Legislature who changes his party allegiance, ipso facto, loses his seat in the Legislature.

At this juncture, it is apposite to observe that the new FEDECO whose activities, from its incipient ill-digested utterances, must be closely watched and quickly curbed where necessary, has called our attention to Section 3 7(b) of the Constitution. This Section recognises, by clear implication, an independent candidate. But the Section is otiose; because, in my considered view, it is cancelled out by Section 20 I, 202, and 209 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, one fundamental condition for the registration of a Political Party is that its:

‘programme as well as aims and objects … shall conform

with the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution .. .’

that is, the ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’. In other words, all Political Parties undertake to pursue aims identical to those in Chapter II of our Constitution, if elected into office. Whether or not all the five Registered Political Parties are doing so now or not, is another matter. Because Chapter II is not enforceable in a Court of Law; the NPN, as chief defaulters, appear to be getting away with their blatant breach of faith with the electorate. It is comforting, however, that their fraudulent manipulations can only last till the next elections.

Be that as it may. The important point to stress here is that our Constitution clearly makes a Registered Political Party the cornerstone of the activities of all the members of that Party, including those of them in the Legislature and the Executive, as well as those of them operating outside these two organs of Government. Indeed, the Registered Political Party is the sole source from which candidates for election, and elected members of the Legislature and Executive, derive their life-blood for acceptability, public status, and legitimacy. Any elected member or group of elected members of a Political Party who refuse to toe the Party line – that is, choose to break their link with the Party Source – must, of a necessity, either quickly affiliate with another Political Party for a link with another party source, or be doomed to political dehydration or anaemia. In other words, by express provisions as well as necessary implications in the Constitution, the Registered Political Party is supreme and absolutely decisive in the conduct of our public affairs.

If the Party is supreme, then it is simple logic that in all matters of dispute, conflict, or antithesis between the Legislature and the Executive, the Party in Power should have the last say whenever a consensus cannot be reached between them.

In those circumstances, the Party in Power must provide forums and avenues for regular consultations designed to forestall or nib in the bud acrimonious disputes between the Legislature and the Executive, to promote a consensus between the two organs, to correct deviation from the Party line on the part of Members of the Legislature or of the Chief Executive, and to take a firm and final decision one way or the other, whenever necessary. This should be the case wherever the Party controls both the Legislature and the Executive. Accordingly, this should be the case in the five States controlled by the UPN. More so as our Party Constitution makes sufficient provisions for forums of consultation between those elected into public offices on the one hand, and Party leaders on the other, at every level of governmental activities – from Local Government right up to Federal Government.

Two problems of peculiar dimensions, however, arise; firstly, when the Party in control of the Legislature is different from the Party in control of the Executive; and secondly, when a party is a minority in a Legislature controlled by another Party which also controls the Executive and is, therefore, the Party in Power.

In the first case, since the Members in the Legislature and those in the Executive must regard their respective parties as supreme, then there has to be constant occasions for operational conflict or even irreconcilability. The same thing goes for the second case. Nevertheless, I do once again affirm, most emphatically, that the Party is supreme, and that the Party is the political cornerstone in all conduct and direction of public life. At the same time, the Constitution has stipulated for all Political Parties, regardless of their methodological diverseness, common social objectives which they are all enjoined to pursue at all times. The Constitution has also provided identical touchstones by means of which genuine conformity with the ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’, can be assayed.

As a result, there need be no permanent operational irreconcilability or antithesis between the Legislature and the Executive,’ such as obtains in Kaduna State. It is clear that the PRP Government under Balarabe Musa is conscientiously and diligently making efforts to promote the welfare of the people of the State, as enjoined by Chapter II of our Constitution. It, therefore, deserves the support of the Legislature. But it is also clear from all accounts that he is being insensately hindered, at every turn, by an extremely narrow-minded and anti-social NPN majority in the Kaduna Legislature. In this connection, I invite the NPN to reflect upon and learn from the UPN approach to every issue in the National Assembly, and transmit the lessons derived to their fellow-party men in the Kaduna State Assembly.

For instance, of the multitude of Ministers appointed by Alhaji Shehu Shagari, only two were strenuously and implacably opposed by the UPN Members of Senate. Of these two, one has resigned his appointment under disgraceful circumstances. The other one is still holding shamelessly and precariously to office, even though a Committee, of which the Minister is not a member, has recently been set up by Alhaji Shehu Shagari to advise him on matters within the portfolio of the said Minister.

But in Kaduna, lists of Commissioners have been wholly rejected on two occasions. Among those in the lists are men of fine qualities and high qualifications, who are, in many respects, superior to many of those in Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s list supported by the UPN and PRP Members of Senate. What we are witnessing in Kaduna, therefore, IS NAKED TYRANNY OF THE LEGISLATURE AT ITS VERY UGLIEST.

THE BLESSINGS OF COURAGE

Full text of Chief Obafemi Awolowo s speech to Oyo State Houseof Assembly in Ibadan on Wednesday,’ 16th January, 1980. This is the speech in which Chief Awolowo listed his main achievements as Premier of Western Region of Nigeria from January, 1952, o

December, 1959.

The last time I was here in this august Chamber was 25th May, 1962, when I sat in the official box as a very important guest. That same day, two meetings of the Western Region House of Assembly were held: one in the morning, and the other in the afternoon.

Each meeting ended in fiasco – a fiasco deliberately engineered by the powers-that-beat the federal level as an initial process in a well-calculated plan to annihilate the Action Group of Nigeria, and to destroy its leader politically and (as we have now been reliably informed) physically as well. It had been thought by the arch planners that, on the accomplishment of these diabolical ends, they would thenceforth remain in power for ever, and that all those who believed in the ideals of the Action Group either would totally surrender their ideological identity, or would never, NEVER, taste of power again.

The last time I spoke in this Chamber was on the 3rd November,  1959, when I delivered my valedictory address to the House of Assembly. I did not imagine then that I would one day, like this, be accorded the honour and privilege of ever again addressing Hon. Members of the House of Assembly in this same Chamber.

It is, therefore, most gratifying for me to be here again in this Chamber and to have this unique honour of addressing you on this occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the introduction of Free Universal Primary Education in the old Western Region out of which five virile States – Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Ondo and Bendel – have been carved.

I have pleasant and proud memories of my association with the Western Region, and of the role which I had had the honour to play as the leader of its government for eight full years from January 1952 to December 1959.

During this period, the Western Region earned the nick-name of pace-setter in all that is good and worthy of report. Some of the pace-setting achievements can be recalled:

1)            Voting by symbol was introduced into Nigeria by the Action Group and was first practised at the Local Government Elections in Ijebu-Remo in 1953.

2)            Steel ballot boxes and security-printed ballot papers were first used in the Western Region in 1956, at the instance and insistence of the Action Group Government.

3)            The first motion ever for the creation of a new Region – in this case for the creation of a Midwestern Region now known as Bendel State – was moved in the Western Region House of Assembly by an Action Group Member of the House.

4)            It was only in the Western Region that the Leader of Opposition was elected Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.

5)            It was also in the Western Region that Ministers of Finance and of Works were withdrawn from the Tenders Board, and the membership of the Board was restricted to Officials headed by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, together with known members of the Action Group and of the NCNC chosen, from time to time in equal numbers, by the said Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance.

6)            Agricultural Settlements and Institutes were first established in the Western Region.

7)            It was in the Western Region that a minimum living wage was first introduced in Nigeria, and paid to workers in the Region.

8)            The first-ever industrial estate and housing estate in Nigeria were established in the Western Region.

9)            The first television service in Nigeria, indeed in the whole of Africa, was established in the Western Region.

10)          The very famous Liberty Stadium was the first and the best of its kind in Nigeria when it was built in 1959. In terms of elegance and comfort, it still remains the best in the country.

11) Before 1952, the Nigerian Government had never awarded as many as twenty university scholarships a year to Nigerian students. In that year (1952), the Western Region Government became the first ever to award 200 university scholarships in one year to students of Western Region origin.

12)          It was in the Western Region, twenty-five years ago, that Free Universal Primary Education, and Free health Services for children up to the age of 18, were first introduced in any part of Nigeria. It was also in the Western Region that a six-year primary course, instead of the then existing eight-year primary course, was first introduced.

Some people have disrespectfully and insultingly described the Western Region as ‘the wild wild West’. No people with predominant wild inclinations such as are implicit in the description can record in a short period of EIGHT YEARS the supremely impressive, epoch-making, and pace-setting innovations and achievements which have been itemised above. The truth about the people of the Western Region is that they are sufficiently enlightened and bold to refuse to be led by the nose by any person or group however sophisticated such person or group may appear. They are slow to anger; robust in contentions; alert to their rights, and will fearlessly resist and combat evil whenever and wherever they discern it, with all their might and resources. To the people of the Western Region A LEADER IS MADE, NOT BORN. He is expected to justify his leadership by his personal attributes, and by his works for the good of the people. Whereas in some other parts of the country A LEADER IS BORN; and it is the followership that are expected to justify their worthiness to follow by the extremity of their obedience and subservience.

When the decision was taken in 1952 to introduce free universal education and free health services for children up to the age of 18, in the Western Region, it became necessary, in order to finance the schemes, immediately to impose an Education and Health Levy of TEN SHILLINGS per male adult taxpayers in Ijebu Province only. The collection of the levy commenced two years before the introduction of the schemes. This time-lag led to a lot of misrepresentations, which were heightened by the novelty of the schemes and the incredulity of the people towards them.

There was widespread resistance to the schemes, partly spontaneous and mainly instigated by the Opposition. But the Action Group Government had no iota of doubt in its mind that the schemes would fructify and mature in due time to the delight and gratitude of the vast majority of our people.

In concluding my speech on the motion for Education and Health Levy in the Western House of Assembly on 2Jrd January, 1953, I said something which now appears prophetic but which in actual fact exemplifies the clear vision and profound faith of the Action Group Government about the eventual and abiding success of the two epoch-making schemes. This is what I said:

‘Finally, Mr. President, we of the Action Group will press forward and I make this solemn promise with a due sense of responsibility and resolution, we of the Action Group will press forward in the execution of the laudable projects which this House has unanimously approved and accepted, believing as we do, being Christians and good Mohammedans on this side, believing as we do that God Almighty, who sees our hearts and knows we are doing all these things to better the lot of our people, is on our side, and confident also that our beloved and trusting masses, when they begin to enjoy the delectable fruits of the education and health levy which they are now being called upon to pay, will now and in future years remember us with gratitude and adoration as their faithful and devoted servants, and as their only true friends and benefactors.’

But incredulity and hostility towards the free education scheme were not confined to the Opposition and a good number of our people. All the senior Opposition and a good number of our people. All the senior Government Officials – both Black and White – and all the Nigerian intellectuals outside the fold of the Action Group were solidly opposed to the scheme. The then Director of Education in the Western Region declared that he did not believe that the Region was ripe for extension of primary education, let alone for free universal primary education. He thought it was a futile venture to embark on the latter. The Financial Secretary, for his part, thought that the whole business amounted to no more than an academic exercise; as, according to him, we needed to impose at least £5 not 10/- per capita to implement the free education scheme alone.

Because of official attitude to the scheme, Chief S.O. Awokoya, now Professor of Education at the University of Ife, had to prepare his White paper on the scheme, based on the Action Group Policy Paper previously prepared by Chief M.A. Ajasin, now Governor of On do State, and adopted at the inaugural Conference of the Party at Owo. Later, I had to prepare the Exco Memoranda on the implementation of the scheme as it related to education and Health Levy, and the construction of low-cost classrooms.

Now, the offsprings of the old Western Region – Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Ondo and Bendel States – are at it again. But this time on a much grander scale than we dared to essay in 1955. For, today in these five dynamic States, education is free not only at primary level, but also at secondary and tertiary levels as well. As we all know, by free education at these levels is meant non-payment of fees by whatever name called, together with free supply of textbooks t pupils and students.

Those who protested vehemently some six months ago that the introduction of this laudable scheme from 1st October, 1979, could not be accomplished because of non-existent difficulties which they imagined in their heads can now see how very wrong they were, and how muddled their thought-processes had been. For the scheme is now more than three months old; and, in about five months from now, it would have completed one full academic session.

Here then in the five UPN-controlled States, a new historic pace has been set; a new revolutionary impulse has been generated; and, by God’s Grace, this new dialectical progression will not only endure as its predecessor, but will also pervade the entire Federation of Nigeria.

It is not given to many a thinker or theoretician to see his ideas or theories practicalised in his lifetime; nor to more than a few pioneers to witness the fructification’ and ripening of their endeavours, and take part in the glorious harvest. Today, it was exactly twenty- five years ago when I had the honour to launch the Free Universal Primary Education Scheme for the Western Region of Nigeria here in Ibadan on 17th January, 1955. Tomorrow will be the beginning of another natal cycle for the Scheme. The youngest of the founding pupils of the Scheme are now 31 years of age. It stands to reason, therefore, to say that many of them now occupy important positions in all the spheres of useful activities throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Indeed a good number of our legislators in, the five. UPN-controlled States are products of that Scheme which was launched twenty-five years ago. As a matter of fact, the planners of these silver jubilee celebrations are products of the Scheme, and are mostly self-employed professionals and businessmen.

Today, my joy knows no bounds, as one of the planners and executants of the old Scheme, and as one of the planners of the new Scheme which is now unfolding before us with unparalled speed. I seize this opportunity to congratulate, with all my heart, three classes of people: first, those products of the old Scheme who are alive today to witness these silver jubilee celebrations; second, our five Governors – Chief M.A. Ajasin, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Bisi Onabanjo, Professor Ambrose Ali, and Alhaji L.K. Jakande – for the excellent manner and adorable despatch with which they have set about the execution of the UPN’s four cardinal programmes, with special reference to free education at all levels; and, third, the lucky children of the five UPN-controlled States who are now benefiting and who, from generation to generation in the years to come, will benefit from the new education programme. After launching the free primary education programme in the morning twenty-five years ago, I also did a radio broadcast to the people of the Western Region, on the night of the same day. I concluded the broadcast in the following words:

‘ … The opportunity which the Government of this Region’ offers to all of us in the way of education of our children is far-reaching. I appeal to all of you to seize this opportunity in real earnest. I do not at all minimise the problems that are bound to confront us as we proceed with the execution of all our educational schemes.

‘But if all of you will co-operate, in a spirit of willingness and loyalty, with the Government, the task of tackling and solving any problems that may arise will, God being our helper, be considerably lightened.’

This appeal which was made twenty-five years ago inures today for each of our five States, and for any State in the Federation which may wish to embark on the Scheme of free education at all levels.

As the Scheme unfolds and progresses, difficulties of various kinds will be encountered. There will be administrative, executive, and financial difficulties, among others. But the knottiest of them al is the financial difficulty. Even this, like the other two can and ought to be tackled vigorously and solved.

The country has enough manpower and financial resources to cope with its social and economic problems including in particular the introduction of free education at all levels. But of course it all depends on what we regard as national priorities, and on how our resources are husbanded and deployed for the greatest good of all our people without any discrimination whatsoever.

In this connection, it is imperative that all the relevant arguments should be mustered and directed, with unrelenting and unabating persistence, at the ‘densely-compacted intellect’ of the Federal Government to the end that it may awaken to the very urgent need for promoting the immediate introduction of free education at all levels, free health care, integrated rural development, and full employment of our human resources throughout the country.

There is one and only one primary and overriding objective which all the twenty Governments in our Federation, and all the leaders in the country must recognise: it is the full development and full employment of every Nigerian citizen. This objective, to the exclusion of any other, deserves to be given FIRST PRIORITY in all our national endeavours. Any policy or programme which relegates this objective to the second place is sure to come to grief, and to fail woefully in its bid to advance our economic development, and to promote social justice and political stability.

No one in his senses has ever denied and can ever deny that man is the Alpha and Omega of all activities. And in all these economy and at any stage of human advancement. He is the producer of all raw materials and secondary goods; he is the distributor, exchanger and final consumer of everything that is ever produced by man. In the Church, in the Mosque, in politics, in the State, in the family, and in society generally, man is the Alpha and Omega of all activities. An in all these activities, he alone has the capacity to make or mar: nothing else on earth has. Man is ordained to have dominion and be monarch over the earth. The vagaries of nature and the acts of God which now and again affect him adversely, do so because of his ignorance of their causes, and of his lack of sufficient knowledge to eliminate such causes when he ascertains them or to cope successfully with their effects.’

The point in controversy as far as some people are concerned is whether man’s development should have or should not have priority over the development of natural resources into raw materials and then into secondary goods for man’s final consumption.

In this regard, there is a feudalist-capitalist veil which has, for centuries, and until recently, obscured the prime-importance of the developed man in the economic development process, or in any kind of development process, for that matter. The Japanese are the first to peep seriously behind the veil; and the USSR is the first to tear the veil asunder; the prime dynamic of all development or advancement – be it economic, social or political – is the developed man. Accordingly, they have both given the prime of place to the development – that is the education and health – of everyone of their respective citizens.

Look in whichever direction you like, and you will see for yourselves that in the long saga of man’s multifarious adventures, nothing worthwhile has been initiated and achieved without the motivating impulse and sustaining direction of the man of education, science, and technology.

From the earliest days of man, and centuries before the establishment of institutions for formal education or health care, we see the slave-owner and feudalist, in all parts of the world, taking great pains to develop his offsprings, whilst he sedulously forbids similar facility for his slaves and serfs. The early capitalists also took after the feudalists whom they had displaced. They made sure that their own children were sufficiently developed to take over from them, and that the working classes and their descendants remained as mentally underdeveloped as was compatible with the functions and operations they were called upon to perform.

Some of us do speak glibly, indeed thoughlessly, of the Industrial Revolution in Britain as being the precursor of Britain’s rapid economic development in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But such people carelessly overlook the fact that, without the men of education, science and technology, like Richard Arkwright, James Hargreaves, Revd. Edmund Cartwright, James Watt, and a multitude of others, the Industrial Revolution could not have taken -place. Some of the main charactreristics of the Revolution, can be mentioned as proof of this assertion. These are:

1)            the discovery and utilisation of new energy sources;

2)            the invention and fabrication of new machines and other mechanical devices; and

3)            the invention and development of faster forms of transportation and communication.

The very rapid development of Britain in late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, of the USA in the nineteenth century, of Japan in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and of the USSR in this twentieth century, has been brought about primarily by the men of education, science and technology in these countries. And the examples of these highly developed countries, among others not mentioned here, are enough for us to reiterate categorically that at every stage of human development or advancement, the moving spirits are invariably the men of education, science and technology. The more of them a country has, the brighter are its prospects for rapid economic progress, for social justice, and for political stability.

It is generally agreed, and in any case the fact stares us in the face, that in spite of her enormous economic potentialities, Nigeria is one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries of the world. She has been in this shameful position for very many years. We must not allow her to remain this way for much longer. All those who share the view that RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA BY NIGERIANS FOR NIGERIANS is a matter of urgent necessity must agree to do first thing first, no matter to which political party they may belong. And that FIRST THING is the full development and full employment of every Nigerian citizen.

Already, most parts of the country have lost twenty-five years in the matter of the development of our people. The reason is that many of our leaders and so-called intellectuals, instead of girding their loins and doing likewise for our people in their respective areas of influence, have elected to spend a-quarter-of-a-century in deriding and jeering at a great scheme which was introduced here in 1955, and which has in the course of years produced many of the most brilliant and ablest Nigerian youths who abound today in the professions, in industry and commerce, in parastatal organisations, and in Government.

I seize this auspicious occasion to appeal to those Nigerian leaders who may still be inclined that way, to desist NOW from playing a stupid and dangerous game which experience of twenty-five years has shown to be fit only for nation-wreckers, and for ‘the envious and asses that bray’.

We must always bear in mind that our Constitution enjoins us, as and when practicable, to provide free education at all levels for our children and adolescents. I declare for the umpteenth time that all the good things of life provided for in our Constitution are practicable now.

Those who foolishly and recklessly maintain that, compared with the other parts of the country, the primary education given in the five UPN-controlled States is lacking in quality will do themselves a lot of good by looking to pages 25 and 27 of THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st MARCH, 1977. At page 25 the results for GCE (Advanced Level) Examination held in November – December, 1976, showed that the Western States have 6,492 passes which are 48.8 per cent of those who sat for the examination from those States; the Eastern States have 2,500 passes which are 37.9 per cent of those who sat; whilst the northern States have 1,251 passes, that is 41 per cent of those who sat. At page 27 the results of GCE (Ordinary Level) Examinations held in May –  June, 1975, may be tabulated as follows:

Division 1,’ Distinction    Passes                  Percentage of

those who sat

Western States                                 72                           0.2

Eastern States                   51                           0.1

Northern States                               37                           0.25

Division I

Western States                                 1,151                     2.6

Eastern States                   1,087                     3.1

Northern States                               462                         2.8

Division II

Western States                                 3,545                     8.0

Eastern States                   3,381                     10.5

Northern States                               969                         5.7

Division III

Western States                                 13,494                   28.6

Eastern States                   9,060                     27.6

Northern States                               3,834                     22.4

It is crystal clear from these figures that the products of the Free Universal Primary Education, who have been disposal, should no longer drag his feet on the question of free robbers’, are indisputably in the lead in all the GCE (Ordinary Level) and GCE (Advanced Level) Examinations held in 1975 and 1976 respectively.

Alhaji Shagari, in the face of these and other facts at his disposal, should no longer drag his feet on the question of free education at all levels on the pretext that he wants something better than what obtains in the UPN-controlled States. From the percentages of passes, there is no doubt that there’ is considerable room for improvement in ALL THE STATES. But more so in the Northern States where the total number of candidates who passed these examinations are comparatively very very low indeed.

The educational gap between the Western States and the Northern States is too wide for comfort. And it would be criminal for anyone who has the power and the means to close it, to allow it to widen further. It cannot be closed by trying to halt the forward march of the Western or Eastern States as someone had suggested some three or so years ago. For one thing, this is an impossible proposition. For another, such an attempt would be certain to provoke an emotional reaction of frightful proportions among those affected. The gap can only, therefore, be closed by embarking now, throughout the country, on Free and Compulsory Primary Education, Free and Compulsory Secondary Education, and Free Education at Post-Secondary levels. If we do this now, the existing educational gap will be permanently closed in FIFTEEN to TWENTY YEARS’ time.

In closing, I wholeheartedly congratulate our five Governors – Ajasin, Onabanjo, Jakande, Ige, and Alii, and with them I associate the names of Abubakar Rimi, Governor of Kano State, and Abdulkadir Balarabe, Governor ofKaduna State – for blazing these new beneficial educational trails offree education at all levels. Obstacles there must be in the path of every pilgrim or pioneer in search and pursuit of noble and humane objectives. I have no doubt that when they do appear, as they are bound to, we shall, with Almighty God on our side, overcome them, even more gloriously than the pioneers of twenty years ago had done in their time.

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK

READ ALSO: Middle Belt group writes Danjuma over crisis between Benue, Taraba