 Northern governors in the region disagree on a collection of BAT and 2023 presidency. Former governor of Jogawa State, Suley Lamedo, attributes the growing insecurity in the country to the failure of the administration of President Mohammad Ibrahim to fulfill its campaign promises. This is cross-politics, and I am very unaccompanied. Governors of the southern and northern regions are not in agreement on the issues of the 2023 presidency. The governors of the 19 northern states rejected their southern counterparts' call that the president must come from the south. They have also kicked against the collection of value-added tax by states saying that it would lead to multiple taxations and also make a mess of the interstate trade. In the area of insecurity, they commend the armed forces and security agencies for their fight against banditry, kidnapping and Boko Haram in the north, and urged them to sustain the temple. Joining us to discuss this is Ambassador Joe Keshe, a former permanent secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a global policy analyst. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for joining us. Thank you for having me. Thanks. So let's start with, you know, the statement by the southern governor saying the presidency should move to the south in 2023. Although we think that it's being misinterpreted by the governors of the north to be an intent to somewhat clamp down on the north, because I remember the Northern Elders Forum released a statement. In fact, the leader of the Northern Elders Forum had come out to say that this is an attempt to read the north of its powers and that they were ready. They were ready because they had the numbers and they would not allow themselves to be called anymore. What do you make of this back and forth? Number one, I think you are being generous when you say that they were misunderstood or they didn't get the import of what they were saying, no. But look, it just shows you the quality, the character of those who are leading us in this country. The level of commitment to this country, the level of commitment to the people they claim to lead is almost zero. They are more interested in themselves, in their family and nobody else. If not, under the military for 34, 35, 36 years, the north was at the helm of our fears. They had a situation in the north today and yet these goblins say how the morality, unashamedly true, to come out and say that they must retain the presidency, do or die. Those tell you that these people are not interested in the people they claim to be leading. All they are interested in is power and what power brings to them. If not, we shouldn't be debating about where the presidency goes and where the president does not go. In the name of fairness, justice and equity. If one side has roots and the other side is claiming that it needs to take a shot at the presidency, why can't we agree instead of people just... And I think the most tragic thing was that some respected traditional rulers joined this gang to begin to make such statements. The issue is power for whom and for what. They had power for 35, 34, 35, 36 years under the military. They've had power in the last six years. Look at the state of the north. And of course, they will reply, look at the state of other places. The truth of the matter is that the south is doing relatively better than anywhere else. So, if they want to remain under... Look, the arrogance of it all is that they can rule and do whatever they like. This is unacceptable to most Nigerians. How do you mean they can rule and do whatever they like? I understand when you say they've ruled for a while, but what do you mean by they'll do whatever they like? Read the statement that they read that has been coming out, you know, like from Baba, Meda and company. They're also doing the same thing. We shouldn't be quarreling over who rules. There's been an agreement since 1999, which was why President Buhari had no problem handing over to the North Ana. Let me move on to the issue of open grazing. Now, that was the genesis of all of this. Let's not forget. The southern governors had taken a stand as to a ban on open grazing up until a few months ago where the emolstering governor backtracked and decided that he was not going to put out an outright ban on open grazing. But this was the genesis of the problems between the northern and the southern governors, which is also something that ties to the insecurity that we're facing across the country. It used to be in the Northwest, but it's trickled down to the south and this had pushed the hands of the governors to decide to, you know, ban outrightly open grazing. Now, they're talking about open grazing. In fact, the governors had urged the federal government to expedite action on national livestock transformation program, which is the NLTP, as a springboard of transitioning from the open grazing system as widely practiced in the North. Now, Nigerians also, even pundits, have kicked against the idea of the federal government getting involved in this NLTP project. They're wondering why there is so much attention to it as opposed to any other business that is run in the country. But this is the basis of insecurity in the country. So why shouldn't the federal government get involved? And why are the southern governors and of course the people in the state questioning the federal government's move on this NLTP? Because this is a federation, pure and simple. Look, I don't know, without your respect, I don't know how old you are, but if you are as old as I am and since the last couple of years, if anything happens in Lagos, right from Bola Tunubu, what's his name? Fashola, the other gentleman and the current governor. If anything happens in Lagos or happens in Potacot or happens anywhere in the south, we go after the governors. We want to find out where the governors not bring ABCD. If it happens in the North, they go after the federal government. And that has been the pattern. This is a federation and a number of things has to be done. So part of the problem where we are in the mess we had today is because of the overwhelming activities and powers of the federal government almost rendering the states, you know, are sustainable. If the states don't work, the federation will not work. And the states cannot work where you keep on taking the bulk of their responsibilities here and there. Please, we need to go back into history, even in the fossil public, and see whether what the states are doing today was what the regions were doing at that time that we had something close to a true federal structure. The military has destroyed our federal structure and they've left us with what we have now, which is creating the bulk of the problems we have in this country. And until we all have the quarry to say enough is enough, let's run this country as a true federal state with an effective and sustainable local government with a very strong states and of course the federal government doing its bits. As it is in some federation that interestingly enough, you know, we copy the United States constitution at least to a large extent, but we do not have the discipline of the willpower and the principle of purpose to act as it is. Look, the governor of California, Hudson, the governor of Florida, Hudson is on his own. So in this country, no, the federal government wants to be involved in almost everything, which is why so federal agencies are even making policies involving states. But you see, this is a song that is being sung every election cycle. We need to go back to how, you know, we need to change the constitution. We need to tweak this and that. We only pay lip service to these things. If we want to run a federation, then we cannot run it by lip service or just agitating. We need to take it down to the level of the legislature so that we can amend the constitution if need be. But that's not happening. And all of the amendments that we've seen happen so far are not in that regard. We also hear about restructuring thrown around when it's almost close to elections and we all jump on it and talk about restructuring, but we never get down to the nitty-gritty. Are we not part of the problem? Are we not the ones who are aiding and abating these politicians in, you know, the name-cullings or the throwing around of words, instead of really getting them to do something that can change the situation of things so that we can have these federating states and units work as they should be constitutionally? You know, there is a large disconnect between Nigerians and politicians. And so when it's election time, Nigerians think that this is a bad time. This is a time for us to get whatever we can get from them at the end of the day. They can go ahead and do whatever, you know, they want to get. Look, history has taught us nowhere in the world has anybody or government giving somebody anything free. You have to fight for it. You have to mobilize people. You have to sacrifice. You have to demand for it. You have to be on the street protesting. Look at everywhere people have won political battles. It is not by what we are doing in this country, paying this service as you rightly pointed out. People struggle. People sacrifice. And some pay the price so that the society could move forward. But in this country, politicians just play out to the gallery. And as I said before, they're only interested in themselves and what they can get and what they can, you know, but in terms of leading the people. You know, that's what you should ask yourself is. The last time I think that we had politicians with the ability to mobilize people seriously and people took them, you know, seriously was probably also in the 16th first republic where you have respected politicians who stood on principle. But today after election, let any politician be going on the street, people don't even mind. Governors pass here and there, people don't even care. It's because of that disconnects. So the point I'm saying is, if we want a true federal state, we should be prepared to fight for it. If we have to demonstrate every day, nobody gives power to anybody. Nobody honestly says to you, OK, you want this, let's do it. You must fight for it. And that's what we are not ready to do in this country. And it's because of the absence of leadership. Even in countries where you have dictatorial governments, we see protests. But in Nigeria lately, protesting against government is either going to meet with bullets or the full power or the full strength of the police and mobile police officers or even the army. But again, that's what I said, that everywhere people have fought for something, people have died for it. And it's part of that sacrifice that this is what people... There's no way you can get some of these things without bloodshed. So you're saying that people who want to protest should have at the back of their minds that they might get killed. Is that what you're saying? If you believe in what you want to do, you believe in the cause of justice, fairness and equity, you must fight for it. Leaders who want to live must enjoy the confidence of the people and the people who follow them. But in a situation where it is so fluid, all they do is politicians at election time give money and people are happy to get money because after that you don't see them again for four years. So we are where we are. Now all the conversations that we've had this evening obviously boils down to the same issue of restructuring. For example, the VAT issue, River State and Lagos State seem to be in agreement in the first instance, which has made other states begin to rethink and look within. But let's look at what the governors of the North have said. They're saying that this is illegal and it is unconstitutional. They're saying that this might lead to multiple taxation, which is also against the law. For me, the VAT issue, it's the economies and everybody familiar with taxation, there has been a lot of debate in the last couple of weeks since there is the court decision in protocol. But look, for me here is the problem. We are having all these problems of VAT, for no VAT. We are having this problem of currency losing its value or not losing its value. For one simple reason, we are not a productive entity. If all these states are productive, if these states are focusing on economic development and they have the ability or the capacity to mobilize resources from their respective states and not depend all the time on the federal government, if we are producing enough in this country and we are selling so many things, not only oil. I don't think we'll be having these debates on VAT and currency devaluation and the rest of it. But I always wonder when we say if the states would be productive, if the states could be productive. I'll take, for example, my state, Costa River State, has so many natural resources that are barely tapped. I'm talking about some that are laying there and people have no idea that it's there. And we say if they can be productive. What is the essence of having a government? If the government is not there to aid development? And again, we have scientists, we have businessmen and women from every part of this country. What are those people doing in the states? I mean on advisory levels in terms of coming up with these ideas on how to make the states viable. So I always ask what is the challenge? Why can't states across the Federation be viable for themselves? Because I guess at the end of the day the money goes back to the states and brings forth some more developmental projects. But what exactly do you think is the challenge? The challenge, I mean the major challenge is there is the availability of free money. So if you can get free money, monthly you go to a bookyard, they give you a check. Why do you want to bother doing anything else? All those who are, look, again, go back. Go back to when states were being, or when people were advocating for the creation of states. In some locations I have said let us look back into history and look at those who advocated for the creation of states and look for some of them and make them government because every one of them argued that the states they were demanding for would be viable and sustainable. But they were lying to the people. They knew that those states would not be sustainable if they don't work, and by the way every state in this country with no exception have the resources, natural and mineral resources to sustain itself and contribute to the national pause. It is because we have not demanded that every state must contribute to the national pause. That states are arguing over that, arguing over sharing of who gets what, and no, if every state in this country can begin to be productive, give or take in under four, five, six years. Now, given the economic situation will change dramatically. But this conversation about the VAT wouldn't it actually get to the point where that might become the order of the day where everyone is asked to fend for themselves and at the end of the day all contribute to the federal pause? Would this conversation not be going in that direction? Or is it purely political? We did that in the 1960s and heaven's in fall. We did that in the 1960s and heaven's in fall. The states contributed money to the federal pause. And the heavens in fall. And if you do that again, heavens will not fall. Now, how do we get our legislators? Because the governors can do so much. They need the state's assemblies to get certain laws passed. But when it comes to the national interest of the country, we're looking at our national legislators and the positions that they would take. Now, you also talked about the power at the center and why certain people would not want to look within themselves like the states to develop. But for our legislators, we're looking at laws that would one way or the other make government offices a bit less attractive to help take away more power from the federal government, which is the center. But do we see this happening anytime soon? Because I always say, I have a way of putting it. I always say, is it possible to cut off your nose to spite your face because you want to do good? You know, I think it was on Sunday here in my house in Lagos. I had some friends and we were watching CNN and they were reporting on the current debates about the President Joe Biden's agenda. And so one remarked and said to me, Bruce, can you imagine us engaging in the kind of debate that is going on right now in the United States and Congress? And somebody just said, it's over a lifetime. And that's a serious indictment on members of the House and what they have turned the House into. On a number of issues, there are no serious... In fact, when you listen to some of the conversations, it reminded me of what Peter Nahar who said, you know, at some point I can't remember when he was making a comparison between the First Republic parliament and subsequent parliament. It's like, you know, there are parts. There were debates. There was a serious debate on both sides because of the quality and the character and the strength of the gentlemen and women that were in the House then as compared to what we have now. We have some good legislators, by the way, but it is debatable whether, you know, in terms of, you know, debate contributing seriously to national issues and taking the kind of decision that we move this country forward. You know, whether we can rely on the National Assembly, but we put it there, I mean, that's what we have and that's what we live with. Going forward, 2023 is around the corner and everybody, we see the shaking in the different political parties and the Chris Crossing was seeing the verbal attacks here and there. Of course, all of this is leading up to 2023. By the time this year is over, the campaigns begin in full swing. There have been people who have been asking that Nigerians not only just come out to vote or get registered to get their PBCs, but also join partisan politics. But is it not a tad bit late in the day for that to happen? I'm just asking, again, as we get ready for 2023, do we see anything changing, you know, come 2023 with what, you know, is happening within the country with how the people are also reacting to it? What does the future hold for us? Well, in terms of politics, it is very bleak. Very bleak because of the absence of serious minded leaders, because of the absence of change agents, because of lack of charismatic leaders with a sense of focus, you know? Look, I don't know, if you have ever watched some of our campaigns, you know, they are not serious campaigns. They are just big carnival. And everybody goes and says whatever they want to say and then hope that the people would vote for them or they do what we call magic, government magic and everybody is elected. You know, we have seen, I wouldn't go into who did this but a couple of years ago, there was a huge campaign rally and one of the prominent leaders also asked to come and speak and he came out and said, you know, called, you know, shouted out to the people and after that he said, hey, we're going to dinner today. And that was the end of the campaign. And of course they won. You can see that if you have, I'm sure you've won a couple of elections. The German election has just ended. It just ended, yes. Before the German election, I'm trying to remember the one before the German election where there was serious campaign and everybody was unsure who was going to win. But people were voting on the issues. They were voting on what they wanted the politicians to do and what the, look, the gentleman who lost the outgoing chancellor's, you know... Angela Merkel's party. Yes. Why did they, why did they lose? Because at an event commemorating the death of some people they saw him like cracking a joke or not showing any seriousness. And the people said this is all the kind of guy we want to replace this lady. Can that happen in this country? But does that not also show how we are as a people? Is our government not a reflection of us, the people? Because we can't really just say point fingers at our leaders and say we do not have good leaders. Do we have good followers? And these leaders do they drop from the sky? I've always argued about these good leaders and good followers. You know, sometimes people want to turn the argument and blame the followers. The leaders set the direction. The leaders set the pace. You understand? Not the people. The people only react to what the leaders are doing. Again, go through history. You will see that it is when the leaders decide that we are going to do ABC and then go out and convince the people to really believe in that leadership. Not when nobody is offering you anything serious or how you are going to do it. It's only in this country that people don't campaign seriously as to what exactly they are going to do. They just give you the headlines. We will fight corruption. We will kill like Boko Haram. We will do ABC. And the election is over. And many years after the election, first two, three, four elections, we are still where we are. The problems are still with us. None has been solved. So it's not the fault of the leader. And that's why I say they disconnect. People go to some of these events simply because they want to eat, they want to make money, they want to collect something from the politicians. And as far as their man is there, they are okay. Whatever happens, they are not interested. But then they turn around and begin to complain after. But the leaders set the pace. Look, it's only leaders who can provide the direction of change. Okay. We want to say thank you very much for being part of this conversation. We appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Good luck. Thank you so much. We will take a short break and when we return, we will be talking about insecurity that is being blamed on it. Stay tuned.