 It's still plus politics. Now the Southern Governors Forum has attributed the over-centralization of structures of government to the unending agitations across the country. The chairman of the SGF, Governor Rotimi Akiridolu of Akiti State, said the fiscal policy and over-centralization of powers in the hands of the federal government have turned the country into a unitary nation. He said this, that this is a major reason for the unending agitations for restructuring. He lamented that putting many items in the exclusive list has concentrated too many powers in the federal government's hands. Akiridolu said the unity of this country is based on sustainable true federalism. Joining us to discuss this is James E. Bohr, his legal practitioner, and Kabeer Adamo, a security risk management expert. Thank you very much, Mr. Adamo, for joining us. Great. I'm going to start by talking about the agitations because this is your area. I do not know because the governors are of course on paper the number one security officers of the estates, but we have seen, you and I have been in this country, I mean this whole year has been one issue or the other. In terms of the agitations, is it really about restructuring because I hear about restructuring just pre-election year, every election cycle we hear about restructuring. But do you think that it's majorly about the fact that there's power resting at the center, the fact that governors cannot control the securities in the estates and these agitations like what we've seen in the southeast, what we've seen in the northwest, what we're seeing also in the southwest, could all of this be tied to politics and not necessarily the fact that governors cannot deal with these security heads in the estates except they get power or some form of not from the center? So that means I mean, but if that's the reality, I'll tell you each state has approached this differently and I would like using the Lagos model where Lagos has set up a security trust fund that is as good as any privately run company and has governance structures that has an auditor or someone who is interested in understanding how it's run. I see it and I see how effective it has been in supporting the security architecture in the state. And then you've got other states that are so opaque in how they are running or rather contributed to the security architecture that does not allow that type of capacity. I yet to hear them criticize them the federal government. So again, it's a narrative and there are some elements of truth in the fact that I've done over centralization of, if I narrow it down to security now, yes, the security is in the list and it is centralized at the federal government in theory. However, in reality, the operations of security are actually bound at the state level and the governments have a huge role to play in that. They share the state security councils, they have, they receive the security votes. I'm not aware that any of them have ever had security votes. They contribute to the funding of security agencies. Some of them transparently like the leaders example are given and then the majority from the nobody knows how they use that money. And so I hear the agitation and I can understand when that agitation is related to the issues of equity, justice and inclusion. But how right and fair is it to put that burden alone on the federal government. The constitution recognizes three levels of government, the federal, the state and the local government level. I'm not aware that any of the state governments have allowed the autonomy of the local governments to the extent that for instance, even the various elements of what the local government powers allows within the constitution, those governments have allowed it. So it's easy for instance to point a finger at the federal government, but I'd be on their own aligned with the evolution of powers. And again, that's the narrative that I think perhaps in the cause of our conversation we can look a little bit more smoothly. But yes, there is a correlation between the agitation and unfortunately it is centralization, but it is centralization only at the federal level or also at the state level. I think that's subject to a lot of debate. You practically just bit into my next question, but I'll put a pin on that and push further on the issue of state policing. There's been a lot of agitation for state policing because you see for example you have the Met Police in the UK, in the US you have the New York Police Department, you have the Chicago Police Department, but we do not necessarily have that in this country. And I always try to pick the brains of security experts in this country as to how that is not happening. Again, it brings to question the kind of system of government that we're running, even though we say it's a federation, but we seem to be running a unitary system. Does that also play into the reason why we're unable to establish state policing? It's a function of our constitution. Like I mentioned earlier, the security is in the exclusive list. And recently some governors are testing the bad constitutional provision by asking their state assemblies to pass legislation to allow them to have some sort of security arrangement. So it's a very interesting development and I think time would actually solve this issue for us. My professional opinion is that we need to decentralize security. However, the spectra of the city where it's still glaring at us, what rules, for instance, that the ability of certain governors to influence the security architecture within the state that allowed the events that preceded the civil war. And how are we going to cater to that? My answer is trending democracy at the state level. And unfortunately, we're hearing that discussion at the moment, the concentration, especially of the civil society and a lot of the media is at the federal level. And we need to also, I think, put that pressure on the state systems. What we have is a trending democracy at the state system that can check the excesses of the executive arm of government without that. Then the sub-spectra that I mentioned unfortunately will relieve itself and we're likely to see ourselves in another situation. So yes, I believe in decentralization of security so that we vote the state and if possible the local governments would have some level of security within their control and authority. And we should democratize these two arms of government so that there would be checks and balances of the executive arm of government. Wow. The state and the local government level. Interesting. Let me throw this, James, you're just joining us. James, it's very interesting that governors are asking that there be some form of decentralization of power from the federal government. But then we still have lingering somewhere lurking just around the corner the issue of autonomy for local governments. And the states still seem to be holding on very tightly to that. And they've had each time where they've even taken the federal government to court on this particular matter. It's just a case of a pot calling kettle black because that's what our security analysts are saying here. States need to be doing what they're asking the federal government to do if we really want to have a well-rounded system of governments. Do you buy this particular position? Yes. I think the state governments, the state governors are doing what they are doing because the federal government have actually allowed it. You know, we have a system just like Dr. Damoh has said. We have a system where the governors go to Abuja every other day and have in hand begging for resources. So they are not looking inward. Everything is connected to the center. And I think it is the federal government that has enabled this. Yes, we have just sharpened the vis-a-vis of the civil war. And I think the biggest problem is military intervention in our politics because that was actually what has created the entire problem. When the army took over the centralized governors, not because it was good for Nigerians, but because it was convenient for them to stay in control. If we decentralize power, it will be very easy for the secretary of architecture to work because, naturally, the local government will have a role to play. The state government will have a role to play. And maybe the civil society will not emphasize more on strengthening the government at the state level than the local government. Therefore, now, we cannot target this bit, especially when we know that the state depends solely on the federal government. But James, can I come in there? When we say that the federal government seems to be enabling the states, it makes it seem like the people don't have a say in this. And I always like to come from that perspective or from that angle. If we always say, oh, the price of bread in the market is high, blame Bahari. We fail to always point fingers also at the governments that are closest to us, the ones who work directly with us, which is our states and local governments. Are we holding them accountable before we even start stretching our hands to the federal government? I'm not in any way also absolving the federal government, but I'm saying, do we not have a role in also making these people responsible one way or the other? Sorry, I lost it there. Yes, I'm asking if the states themselves or we, the people in the states, do not have a responsibility of holding these governments, the state governments to, I mean, because it looks like you're saying it's the federal government that's enabling them, but what about us, the people who are at the receiving end? Before we talk about the federal government, are we making sure that our states are responsible, that they start looking in? Let me tell you, yes, I think we do, but we are talking about our ability to compare the states to do what they thought to have done. For instance, we are talking about judicial autonomy and the efforts we have made to compare state governments to, you know, allow state governments, I mean, the judiciary at the state level to draw from the constitutional reform. Is it very difficult? The federal government tried to maybe say how they can maybe send money directly to maybe the houses of assembly or to the local governments or to the judiciary. That, again, is very difficult. For instance, why should the federal government continue to give governors security votes? Where is it in the constitution? Governors give money to the police. That money is not budgeted for. So if my governor for real time decides to give the constitutional police 50 million naira, how will he account for 50 million naira? If he is a corrupt person, he will share the money with his friends or his girlfriend within the police. I am pretending to be doing police job. They buy vehicles for them and yet there is no process of accountability. What we are saying is that the police have a national project. Can we begin to look forward to assess how they spend the little money they get? Why should governors be donating money to the police? But also, as we are asking the police to give account, again, I am not saying the police should not give account, will the governors be willing to give account of the security votes? Let's make it fair play. Secretary goes money. And what supports that in our laws? We have a national police force that should be properly funded. That is fairly, and most times governments will tell you we use that security to fund the police force in our states. What do they do? They use a huge amount of that money to fund their personal security to the detriment of the people's security. That is why you see so many political elites with so many soldiers and police officers policing themselves and their families, not the people. So I think we just have to assess. We have to decentralize power. There should be fiscal federalism. How do we go about it? Because that's the question I wanted to ask Mr. Adamu, but I'll start with you. How do we go about it? Because again, my other question is, if the federal government is okay and willing to always attend to the governors when they come cap in hand because there is a purse of sort of monies coming from the oil producing states, it also somewhat makes those states not look within, just as you said. But the federal government can only push states to a certain level. The states are also sovereign in their own ways. So really, how much push can the federal government offer? James, can you hear me? I think we lost connection with James, but let me see if Mr. Cabrera can attempt that question. Close. Yeah, Mr. Cabrera, can you go ahead? We'll try to get James back. Okay, so I think it's a case of which comes first, the chicken or the hen or the egg as it were. We're good agreed as it were, decentralization is important. Now you're bringing the element of physical federalism. I am absolutely in support of physical federalism. Each state should have a level of control over its resources. But if we agree to move on, and hopefully that's what we've agreed as a federation, then how will these states contribute to the federation? I think that's where our focus should be at the moment. But then that's why I said it's a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Those states that are within the exclusive list actually allow the federal government to have control over those resources. So at what point are we going to reduce the several things that are within the exclusive list and perhaps move them to either the concurrent list or even the residual list? And if we still go back to the governors, the National Assembly has the powers and the responsibility to do that. And you agree with me that no influence group, no power group in the country at the moment has influence over the National Assembly like the governors. If the governors, for instance, speak to the senators that are representing their states at the National Assembly, that this is what they want to happen. By now, you would have seen bills in the National Assembly and they would have been mobilizing to achieve that. We've seen them mobilized and we've seen the result of their mobilization. And there is nothing that the governors have attempted to do and they must succeed. So why are they working back on this? Why are we not seeing that kind of mobilization to both the governors and members of House of Work that are represented by that state? I think the politicians need to be straight because they need to be serious and tell us in reality what they really want. I hear statements like the one attributed to the southern governors and foreign chairman. But in reality, what are the things that we can hold on to that constitutional review that would reduce those things in the exclusive list for me is a good indication that they are serious and that both physical, you know, decentralization that we want, that the people would happen. Okay, well that's all the time we have. Jamesy Boy is a legal practitioner. Kabir Damu is a security risk management expert. Thank you very much gentlemen for being part of this conversation. Thank you for having me. All right. Well, thank you all for watching. It's been Plus Politics. I hope you enjoyed yourself. Go ahead and follow us on YouTube at Plus TV Africa and Plus TV Africa Lifestyle. You can watch a replay of the show if you missed it. I'm Mary Anna Cohn. Have a good evening.