The Patriots are actively pushing for the formation of a Constituent Assembly, aiming to reshape the nation’s governance.

Chief Emeka Anyaoku is a serious-minded individual who does not engage in trivial matters. Despite being on the same path as politicians, this esteemed former Commonwealth Secretary-General refrains from publicly involving himself in politics and maintains secrecy about his political leanings.

The eminent statesman is not part of the bandwagon of influential individuals who seek to gain power. Whenever he associates himself with a particular group, he reserves his comments for matters that are truly significant either on a national or global level. His words carry weight and draw attention from those around him.

President Bola Tinubu accorded him the attention commensurate with his status as a distinguished citizen when he led The Patriot, comprising of prominent politicians and activists, to meet the President in Abuja.

The Patriots are advocating for a new Constituent Assembly to create what they refer to as a People’s Constitution intended for the country.

The reason why the agenda is well-liked is simply because many people believe that Nigeria’s federal principle lacks credibility and fails to address its core national issue. As a result, it may be necessary to consider reopening peaceful discussions among the diverse ethnic groups in this intricate and varied country as a solution.

Nearly all the individuals in the group, with exception of one retired diplomat, are official representatives from both ruling and opposition parties. They have gathered together to discuss national issues on an impartial platform. Having played significant roles in governance over the past 25 years, they’ve experienced firsthand – perhaps even contributed towards -the various circumstances that have led to advances as well as challenges for their country.

When presenting their proposal to President Tinubu, the Leaders of Thought refrained from using the phrase “Sovereign National Conference” due to its potentially incendiary political implications. The group did not assert that they had been authorized by all Nigerians for this meeting, but rather were likely motivated by a sincere desire and legitimate apprehension regarding the country’s welfare.

Despite sharing a common objective, the current iteration of The Patriots exhibit discernible dissimilarities in makeup when compared to those during Rotimi William/Ben Nwabueze/Ayo Adebanjo’s tenures – an observation made by many. The addition of younger members has resulted in their differing personal and political inclinations being appropriately navigated so as not to impede progress towards achieving shared goals.

Their journey to Aso Villa in Abuja to meet with the President could be attributed to three factors.

The timing of the visit happened to align with 10 days of protests and outrage against the country’s economic crisis. This highlighted a sense that there were issues within the nation, making their intervention appear well-timed in their eyes. However, not everyone shared this view on the demonstrations.

Read Also: Afe Babalola Criticizes Tinubu’s Palliatives, Says They Are Turning Nigerians into Beggars

Similar to numerous other concerned parties, the Patriots hold the view that the 1999 Constitution is fraudulent due to its deceptive use of “We, people of Nigeria” in its preamble. This document was forced upon citizens by military forces and has remained marked with a perception of imposition, centralized control and autocratic governance despite gradual amendments.

The senior leaders also recognize Asiwaju Tinubu’s background and past as a supporter of federalism and an unstoppable promoter of decentralization during his tenure as governor of Lagos State, as well as the titular national opposition leader.

The demand of the group may have stemmed from their belief in President Tinubu, a sincere democrat who values input from honest citizens dedicated to advancing their country. The Patriots likely perceive him as an affable leader open to discussing critical national matters with ease. Given his history, it is evident that elder statesmen trusted they could rely on him and work together towards reformation through a clear-cut Nigerian constitution.

It’s possible that they’re discontent with the current administration’s efforts to restore federalism without a constitutional conference. As a result, it can’t be ruled out that tactical blackmail is being considered.

Apparently, The Patriots do not have faith in the National Assembly’s ability to create a democratic constitution that would reinstate widely accepted federalism.

The Patriots dispatched representatives to former national conferences that resulted in commendable reports, addressing their requests. However, the faction shunned a cost-effective approach by recommending President Tinubu arrange another conference akin to his predecessors Olusegun Obasanjo and Dr. Goodluck Jonathan instead of resurrecting prior findings from obscurity and lobbying Parliament for enactment.

The Patriots proposed that, in a politically stable country where political parties are entrenched and play significant roles in democracy’s key institutions, the Constituent Assembly should consist of individuals elected on a non-partisan basis.

Furthermore, it seems that the current senatorial districts will be utilized as constituencies wherein each state elects three delegates, a proposal made by The Patriots. These districts presently have 109 senators and 360 House of Representatives members in the National Assembly. Elected delegates could potentially be seen as competition by these legislators.

As expected, legitimate representatives in the national parliament collaborate with governors to sway the selection of delegates for the Constituent Assembly from their respective districts.

The proposal to the President does not include details on how the Constituent Assembly election will be conducted. However, given that delegates are recommended to be elected, an umpire is necessary for organizing and establishing eligibility requirements for candidates, as well as determining screening methods and mode of voting – whether it should be open or secret balloting system with physical vote count similar to Third Republic technique. Nigeria has a wealth of experience in this regard.

Some members of the group have re-evaluated their stance on Constituent Assembly representation and opted for using states as constituencies instead of ethnicity. This change suggests that state governors, who financially support these areas, will have more influence over decision-making.

It may not be feasible to accomplish the task within “six to nine months.” Earlier conferences had at least a one-year duration, indicating that additional concerns are likely to arise for deliberation if establishment of the Constituent Assembly takes place now. Facing numerous difficulties in development has become more frequent lately.

The group’s proposal for the Constituent Assembly to review the 1960 Independence Constitution and 1963 Republican Constitution reveals their preference for a parliamentary system and attachment to regionalism. This suggests a regression of ideas, as it contradicts Chief Williams’ previous recommendation in 1979 when he was an advocate of the American executive presidential system while leading The Patriots.

Anyaoku, being a global citizen, is deeply affected by the tragic downfall of countries that have disintegrated. He holds concerns that Nigeria may end up following the same path towards destruction and obscurity unless it addresses its fundamental diversity through implementing a federal constitution. Anyaoku warns about Nigeria potentially experiencing similar outcomes as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia had faced previously. His alert echoes predictions from foreign organizations made two decades ago about an imminent state failure looming ahead for Nigeria with doubts over whether it could survive beyond 2015.

According to these distinguished leaders, Nigeria is not operating effectively as a federation even after 64 years of gaining flag independence.

In 1960, the country was a true federal nation-state. However, it has since transitioned to a unitary system under military leaders who assumed authority but have ultimately become burdensome. The Fourth Republic retains an excessive concentration of power that originated from over-centralization during the previous dictatorship lasting 27 years.

The conclusion of federalism was ushered in by the 1966 coup, and Nigeria has been unable to achieve national unity due to constant turmoil. The notion of harmony amidst diversity is a lofty goal that remains unattainable. The unresolved issues surrounding nation-building, such as conflicts over identity and difficulties with integration, participation, and resource allocation persist as major challenges.

Hence, the older politicians were clearly overcome by feelings of nostalgia and patriotism. They long for a time in Nigeria’s history when it was seen as a promising middle-ranking global force due to its diverse population and abundant resources that led to more stability and productivity.

The adoption of The Patriots’ proposal is not groundbreaking, as requesting a referendum is not an innovative concept. In Nigeria, conferences have become monotonous events that consume enormous amounts of money and yield no tangible outcomes.

The year 1989 marked the establishment of a Constituent Assembly by Military President Ibrahim Babangida, who was commonly known as “Evil Genius.” However, despite this effort and that for the Third Republic in Nigeria nothing materialized. Another Head of State came into power four years later in 1994 – General Sani Abacha initiated yet another Constitutional Conference which unfortunately proved futile; instead it ended up being an onslaught against democratic consciousness (“June 12”). The event gained little credibility among citizens thereby degrading its integrity significantly.

The report of the 2004 Abuja Conference, initiated by President Olusegun Obasanjo, was disregarded due to an unexplainable Third Term agenda. A similar situation occurred when President Goodluck Jonathan organized a talk show that Tinubh deemed as both frivolous and disingenuous. Despite receiving recommendations from these gatherings, neither president had the fortitude to act on them – citing various excuses for their inaction such as time restraints or upcoming elections. Regrettably, even under President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, there has been no advancement regarding these past efforts; making it seem futile and without progress.

The sole benefit observed thus far is that whenever a national conference takes place in Nigeria, it generates renewed hope and promotes an overall sense of harmony throughout the country.

Despite the efforts to restructure through constitutional reforms in the country, there hasn’t been an equally determined effort made towards combating corruption and bad leadership at every level. This has remained a major obstacle hindering development progress. It is important to determine whether or not the current governance structure contributes to high-level corruption scandals and poor overall management practices that persist within government affairs.

An effective federal system relies on competent operators. The downfall of the First Republic cannot be attributed to flaws in federalism, but instead stemmed from power struggles, ethnic conflicts and election fraud perpetuated by legitimate authorities who failed to restore order. It was this political chaos that paved the way for military intervention.

The economic mismanagement, electoral malpractices, and monumental corruption were the reasons for the collapse of the Second Republic. It was not due to any flaws in its federal structure. Unfortunately, history repeated itself as lessons from the failures of First Republic went unheeded.

Over the last 25 years, there has been an exceptional level of political stability. Had the National Assembly taken more proactive measures in terms of legislative activity, specifically amendments to the constitution, it could have rectified shortcomings and created a legitimate federal system.

The Supreme Court’s efforts in filling the gap are worthy of acknowledgement. Its unambiguous stance on local government autonomy and interventions when federal/state relations result in conflicts serve as prime illustrations of how it has bolstered the progress towards establishing an actual federal state through judicial reinforcement.

There is a glimmer of hope in the current administration’s dedication to implementing state police and railway decentralization.

President Tinubu is open to the ideas of restructuring, devolution and true federalism. In regards to The Patriots’ proposal, he has two responses: firstly, that his government’s current focus is on improving the economy; secondly, Anyaoku will be invited for further discussions regarding The Patriots’ suggestions.

The discussion regarding the proposed Constituent Assembly and the fate of federalism in Nigeria persists until now.