Nigeria @ 66: Parliamentary System’ll Solve Our Problems –Oluwatade

Dele Oluwatade is a Medical Doctor and the Founder of God and People Prayer Parliament (GAP), a non-governmental organization, which has advocated for the restructuring of the country. In this interview with FRANCIS OGBUAGU, he assesses Nigeria after 66 years of independence and points the way forward

What is your assessment of the Nigerian state after 66 years of independence?

Most of the people who can properly assess Nigeria in the last 66 years should be at least 15 years older than me, because I only began to understand the political environment when I graduated from university about 40 years ago. When we were in medical school, we had no room for politics. We were bookworms. Nigeria started happening to us immediately after graduation.

At that time, doctors were being given car loans, but the policy was later stopped. Then the economy and virtually everything else began to deteriorate. What happened in our profession was a reflection of what was happening in the wider society. But on a more serious note, I believe black people have not progressed significantly in the past 66 years.

That is the tragedy. There has been what I would describe as a political imbalance in Nigeria, with one group having greater access to political power than others. The other groups have not been able to organise themselves effectively as a political bloc.

If democracy is a game of numbers, Nigerians have not fully understood democracy as such. Politics has remained dominated by those who have mastered the political system and have had greater access to power.

It is only recently that we are seeing some semblance of politics as a game of numbers, with different groups coming together to have an effect on the nation’s politics. I believe the political caucuses from the various regions are still developing.

They are yet to find their feet after 66 years, and that is a pity. They are still not sufficiently united to pursue a common political objective.

Looking at countries like India, which was also classified as a developing country, but has made significant progress, what do you think is the problem with Nigeria?

The major problem is the structure of our political system and the way power has been concentrated at the centre. If you look at the different administrations Nigeria has had, you will find that some governments paid more attention to development, while others concentrated more on political control and power.

The concentration of power in Abuja has created a situation where virtually everybody wants to control the centre. Once you control the centre, you control almost everything in the country.

That is why I believe we need a different political arrangement. We should return to a system in which the regions have greater control over their affairs.

Each region should be able to develop according to its circumstances, resources and priorities, while there should still be a central government responsible for matters that affect the entire federation.

Ahead of the 2027 election, Nigeria has three major presidential contenders. What do you expect from them as they woo voters?

What I expect from them is a commitment to restructuring Nigeria and replacing the current presidential system with a regional parliamentary system.

Only one of the major candidates, in my view, has the political capacity to guarantee that, and that is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

I expect a system in which the regions manage their own affairs through parliamentary government and have a central government with clearly defined responsibilities.

The central government should not be able to interfere arbitrarily in the affairs of the regions. There should be clearly defined constitutional procedures for intervention when necessary.

One of the weaknesses of the old parliamentary system was that certain constitutional mechanisms were not properly developed. For example, there should have been clear provisions for dealing with disputes between the regions and the centre. There should also have been an exit mechanism and a referendum clause.

If a region genuinely wanted to leave the federation, there should have been a constitutional procedure for determining the wishes of the people through a referendum.

Perhaps if such mechanisms had existed, some of the crises that eventually led to the civil war might have been handled differently through negotiation and constitutional processes rather than military confrontation.

The United Kingdom still operates a parliamentary system, and several other countries have adopted variations of it. I believe Nigeria would have been better under a properly designed parliamentary system.

So, you are saying that restructuring is the solution to Nigeria’s problems?

Yes. If restructuring is not accepted, then we should consider a confederation. If that is also rejected, then the people should at least have the constitutional right to determine their future.

But where Nigeria has developed to today, the least that should happen is a confederation that gives the regions substantial autonomy. I do not believe we should continue with an indivisible and highly centralised presidential system in which the president has enormous constitutional powers.

The next stage for Nigeria should be a parliamentary system that preserves the identity and culture of the people, encourages regional competition in development and promotes the maximum exploitation of the country’s natural resources. Nigeria is blessed with enormous resources. Some areas have oil, while others have gold, diamonds and other minerals that can contribute significantly to the economy.

Under a regional system, every region would have an incentive to develop its own resources and compete with others. That competition would benefit the entire country.

Why do you believe President Tinubu is the candidate most capable of achieving this?

I believe Tinubu has demonstrated a strong understanding of Nigerian politics and has been able to navigate some of the political structures that have historically influenced the country.

He has done things that previous presidents were unable to do, although I believe he should have started addressing the issue of restructuring earlier.

The return to the old national anthem, for instance, could have been accompanied by a broader national conversation about restructuring and the political future of the country. I believe the current administration still has an opportunity to pursue fundamental political reforms before the 2027 election.

As for the other candidates, I have my reservations. I do not believe Atiku Abubakar would be able to achieve the kind of restructuring I am talking about because of the political interests that surround the northern establishment. I also have concerns about Peter Obi’s ability to restructure Nigeria under the present presidential arrangement.

The presidency is too powerful, and whoever occupies it will face enormous political pressures from different interests. What Nigeria needs is not simply a change of individual at the centre. We need to change the structure itself.

Atiku has spoken about returning the oil subsidy. What is your view?

I consider that a backward step. If the subsidy system is brought back without addressing the fundamental problems around it, we risk returning to a situation where people make money without necessarily producing anything. The subsidy regime created opportunities for enormous corruption and rent-seeking.

We need a system that encourages production and reduces dependence on government-controlled resources. The important question is how we can build an economy in which every region can develop its own productive capacity.

President Tinubu has also been accused of nepotism, with critics alleging that many government agencies and parastatals have been given to people from the South-West?

I have seen those allegations, but I do not think the situation is uniform. Sometimes a president appoints people he believes he can work with or control. But this problem is not peculiar to the current administration.

Under previous governments, you could also find southerners occupying portfolios that had little influence, while the strategic ministries were controlled by people from other parts of the country.

That is one of the problems created by the presidential system and excessive concentration of power at the centre.

With a parliamentary and regional system, this tendency will be reduced because each region will have greater control over its own affairs.

For example, a president in Abuja should not be able to dictate who becomes commissioner for agriculture in another region. Each region should have the power to determine how it manages its own affairs.

That is one of the things parliamentary government can solve. Another problem it can solve is what I describe as the possibility of one group taking over the entire country through the enormous powers attached to the presidency.

The Nigerian president is extraordinarily powerful under our Constitution. In other countries, subnational governments can openly disagree with the federal government and have constitutional powers to defend their interests.

In Nigeria, however, too much power is concentrated in the centre. With parliamentary government or a confederation, the regions would have greater autonomy, while the centre would focus on matters that genuinely require national coordination.

As a health expert, what should the government do to stop brain drain and medical tourism?

The answer is not simply in the health sector. It is in restructuring. If we have a regional system, some regions can develop their healthcare systems to a level where Nigerians would no longer need to travel abroad for treatment.

People could travel within Nigeria to access specialised medical services.

Look at Ghana, for example. There are hospitals where people can receive treatment comparable to what they would seek abroad. Nigeria has highly qualified medical professionals working overseas.

The government should create an environment that encourages them to return and establish hospitals and specialist centres. India did something similar.

The government encouraged its specialists who had trained or worked abroad to return home and establish medical facilities.

We need a government with the vision to say to our professionals abroad: “Come back. We will provide the environment and support you need to establish first-class facilities here.” Brain drain is largely a consequence of the poor environment in which professionals are expected to work.