ACF: Calls for restructuring lack clarity of definition

Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) has said the apologists of the restructuring of Nigeria are yet to clearly define the meaning of the concept in the present democratic setting.

According to the ACF, the calls for restructuring appear to have varying meanings to different groups.

A statement released after its national executive counci meeting on Wednesday in Kaduna said the only acceptable restructuring is one that will enhance unity, harmony and peace among Nigerians.

“ACF has observed with keen interest the current nationwide debate on the term, restructuring of the country, as being canvassed by some people, groups and even prominent citizens. The term, however, means different things to different people or groups,” read the statement signed by Mohammed Biu, ACF publicity secretary.

“To some, it is true federalism, whatever that means. For others it is fiscal federalism, while some groups tout resource control, yet we have those for resource ownership.

“ACF notes with regret that those clamouring or demanding for the so-called restructuring are yet to define what they actually mean by the concept and its application in our present democratic setting. In most cases, the meaning depends on which section of the country or where the person advocating it comes from.

“It is, therefore, the considered view of the ACF that any acceptable restructuring meant to improve the unity, stability, harmony and peaceful coexistence of the country must be based on just, fair and equitable principles to all Nigerians that come with clarity of definition.”

The ACF also said it was opposed to the implementation of the report of 2014 national conference because the north was short-changed in the selection of conference delegates.

“For emphasis, there are contentious issues like the abolition of the present local government councils, creation of 18 additional states that were not resolved in accordance with due process of the conference proceedings,” it said.

“ACF, therefore, is of the opinion that it would be morally preposterous and anti-democratic for anybody or group to canvass the implementation of the reports by a conference of unelected delegates.

“This is more so by the elected government, which did not participate in the conference and its recommendations were not part of the manifesto of the ruling party.”