PDP must achieve equity in zoning – Gujbawu

You’ve just been elected to the House of Reps from Borno State but your zone, the North East, appears to be losing substantially in the proposed zoning of the PDP. What do you think?

When I read the permutations in the newspapers today, I was taken aback. One paper wrote that the status quo had been retained but when you read through the story, you discover that there is a major deviation from the status quo. In fact, the purported arrangement is lopsided against the North East geo-political zone. However, I am sure it is not deliberate because I know the leadership of my party, and particularly Mr. President and the acting national chairman whom I believe have a sense of justice and equity. So I just believe that probably it was an oversight and there is need for the party to revisit the formula for the purpose of equity and justice, particularly to the North East.

It is obvious that from the beginning of the present democratic dispensation, six elective positions have been put to zoning among the six geo-political zones. These are the offices of the President and his vice and four offices at the National Assembly: the office of the Senate President, his deputy; the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and his deputy.

You will recall that in 1999, the presidency went to the South West while the vice president went to the North East. In the National Assembly, the Senate president went to the South East while the Speaker of the House of Reps went to the North West; then the positions of deputy Senate president and deputy speaker went to the North Central and South-South respectively. This arrangement was retained until 2007 when President Umaru Yar’adua came on board. Of course when Obasanjo left, the presidency went to the North West, the vice president went to the South South and the Senate president went to the North Central. In the arrangement, the Speaker went to the South West, the Deputy Senate President went to the South East and the Deputy Speaker went to the North East.

This is the arrangement up to this day but from the purported formula which I read in the papers, all the zones except the North East have taken one of these six positions that have always been put to zoning. In fact whether by omission or commission the North West which already has the vice president was purportedly given the deputy speaker which is presently being held by the North East. That leaves the North East out of the calculation. But I believe this lopsidedness will be corrected by the leadership in the coming days, before the new government is inaugurated.

But the North East has been tipped to produce the party’s chairman…?

When you say the North East will take the chairmanship, we also know that there are other party positions to be zoned among the same six geo political zones. The party structure is an entirely different ball game in the zoning arrangement in the PDP. We are talking about the six elective positions that I mentioned earlier which form the focal point of PDP’s zoning. So party leadership, yes, but you will recall that at the beginning of the present dispensation, the South East had the party’s chairman as well as the deputy Senate president so holding the party’s chairmanship did not stop it from having a share in the six offices that form the focal point of the party’s zoning. The same game played out previously when the North Central held the party chairmanship as it, in addition, held the position of deputy Senate president. From these you could see where we have been short-changed.

If you are asked to decide for the party on the zoning issue, what will be your proposal?

If the party in its wisdom agrees to retain the present zoning formula, I will have no problem with that. If that is the case then the deputy speaker should be retained by the North East. If they will do that, then I will say it is fair and just. And if they give us the party’s chairman, that is the first point of the zoning of party offices.

As a new comer what are your expectations of the next House?

As a new comer I have great expectations. My comfort is that nearly 70% of the incoming members are new comers like me. And in any set up where you have new comers, you see energy and new ideas. You will notice that there is a new political awareness in the country; Nigerians are now becoming more mature in the manner we select our leadership. That is why we saw so much of a sweep at the National Assembly. With the current happenings in the country we need fresh ideas; we need a sense of independence at the National Assembly; we need to be altruistic. We should remember that people voted us to power after we offered ourselves to serve them. So we should be careful in the way we manage public trust. We should not be selfish, particularly as it concerns national development and allocation of funds.

What is your reaction to the standing rule of the House that says only ranking members can lead the House?

Of course any organisation has rules, but rules are also made for the general good of the organisation and by extension the whole nation. I think in certain cases this could be advantageous while in other cases, I think this should not be applicable, and particularly now when we have over 70% of the membership as new. I don’t think it is fair to say that only the old members can aspire to lead the House. In 1999, almost all the members were new, without legislative experience but a speaker came out from the situation. So there is no harm in having a speaker, or any other position of leadership, from among the new members. Experience is good, yes, but what we need mostly is good intention, wisdom and action.

.