Special Status Of FCT And The Legitimacy Of National Political Leadership

 By Erasmus Morah 

“To unravel the ‘and FCT’ conundrum, one must know what the Nigerian military general founding fathers of the 1999 Constitution had in mind when they decided in 1976 to build a new capital city on virgin land and set it up as a special federal capital territory.” 

Introduction 

ON Saturday, February 25, 2023, Nigeria conducted nationwide elections for the position of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The electoral process was widely regarded as the most fiercely contested in the nation’s delicate democratic history, setting it apart from previous elections. On March 1, 2023, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, declared the candidate of the ruling All Progressive Congress, APC, as the winner of the elections and the President-elect. The official swearing-in of the President-elect took place on May 29, 2023, and Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office as the 16th President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

While the international community generally congratulated the country and acknowledged the then declared President-elect as meeting democratic and constitutional expectations, the two major opposition parties, the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (on March 21, 2023) and the Labor Party of Nigeria (on March 20, 2023), expressed dissatisfaction and filed a presidential election petition with the Elections Tribunal in Abuja, Nigeria.

Their petition challenged both the electoral proceedings and the announced outcome of the presidential elections. The core argument put forth by one of the opposition parties revolves around the President-elect’s alleged failure to secure “not less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the States of the Federation, AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” as mandated by the constitution [emphasis added]. They contend that this constitutional requirement was not met during the elections, forming the basis of their claim and challenge. 

The challenge to the February 25, 2023 presidential elections results has revived a well-known constitutional dilemma and past Supreme Court challenges that date back to 1979. The central question revolves around the intended meaning of the phrase “and FCT” in the aforementioned constitutional clause as distinct from “including FCT” or “plus FCT.” While there may be disagreement on the precise interpretation, it is generally agreed upon that the intention was not to exclude the FCT from the constitutional requirement.

If indeed the founding fathers of the constitution intended “and FCT” to mean “plus FCT” or “FCT specifically,” it means that the opposition party has some justification for challenging the declaration of an APC victory by the INEC. If the interpretation leans towards “including FCT,” then the President-elect would fulfill the specific constitutional requirement, especially  considering that the 1999 Constitution also acknowledges that the FCT can be treated as a state. If the former, then this raises the fundamental question of why the founding fathers of the 1999 Constitution would grant such a special right or a privileged status to the citizens of Abuja and the Federal Capital Territory that voters in other regions or administrative units in the country do not enjoy. 

To unravel the ‘and FCT’ conundrum, it is important to go back to what the founding fathers of the 1999 Constitution, all military generals at the time, had in mind when they decided earlier, in 1976, to build a new capital city on virgin land and set it up as a special federal capital territory. This article analyzes this historical context and the public policy considerations that drove the establishment of the new capital at Abuja as a special Federal Capital Territory, FCT, with an eye to contributing new insights into the ongoing national debate and decision-making concerning the “2023 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal” process.

The founding fathers of the FCT/Abuja, among the various reasons, identified for the Nigerian military generals’ decision to construct Abuja, two factors stand out prominently. Firstly, there was the notion of “national pride.” As Africa’s most populous country and one of the wealthiest due to its abundant natural resources (further bolstered by the oil boom and petrodollars of the 1970s), Nigeria was seen by both its citizens and the international community as the “black giant” of Africa and potentially a global leader.

The military government, as the founding fathers and architects of Abuja in the mid-1970s, believed that Nigeria was destined for greatness. They aspired to build an ultramodern city that would rival Western capitals and serve as a source of national pride and a symbol of modernity for black people worldwide, regardless of their geographical location. 

By creating a new capital city in Abuja, deliberately located inland and distinct from the congested and traffic-heavy urban landscape of Lagos, the military government sought to establish a modern and prestigious metropolis, while simultaneously eradicating the conspicuous remnants of British colonial influence in Nigeria. This reinforced the notion of a new, independent Nigeria that had firmly arrived as a legitimate member of the “Newer World”.

The second significant motivation behind the military’s choice of Abuja was the concept of an administrative framework known as the FCT. Beyond the evident fact that the FCT does not possess the typical characteristics of a Nigerian state, lacking an elected Governor but instead having an appointed Minister of the FCT, there is a less known yet crucial aspect of “national unity and ethnic neutrality”. As I wrote many years ago: “It is common knowledge that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic country …and that the country has been riffed by ethnic rivalry from its inception.

Lagos, obviously, is a Yoruba land and with such a lop-sided ethnic mix (Yoruba, 72.2% Igbo,15.4% Edo, 3.17% and Hausa, 2.05% in 1963), it was felt that the city, as capital, is inimical to the spirit of national unity, as it could never be a place where all Nigerians could lay claim to every available right, privilege and resource on an equal footing. This could only be achieved in a sort of no-man’s land where no one ethnic group predominated.” 

The just concluded May 2023 gubernatorial elections in Lagos witnessed a poignant confirmation of this fundamental truth about the Nigerian polity, as articulated by the military founding fathers of Abuja. In the weeks and months leading up to the elections, the prevailing discourse revolved around the question of who are the “real owners” or “indigenes” of Lagos, and which individuals or groups possessed a more legitimate right to influence and shape the city-state’s future political trajectory. The strategic location of Abuja—an attempt to make it equi-polity-distant for all. Thus, the founding fathers of Abuja in the 1970s and 1980s embarked on a social reengineering endeavour with the goal of achieving three objectives related to national unity and cohesion.

Firstly, they aimed to strategically locate Abuja at the geographical heartland of the country. By doing so, they hoped that both government and development would be brought closer to the governed, aligning with the concept of the growth pole theory. This approach aimed to ensure that citizens from all parts of the country had relatively equal access in terms of physical distance, minimizing the disparities caused by a geographically distant capital. 

Additionally, it is worth noting that one of the underlying motivations for the establishment of Abuja was a desire to address the concerns of the northern, Hausa-dominated decision-making system prevalent at the time as today. There was a preference for conducting the nation’s affairs from a capital that was not located so far away, in the perceived hostile southern region. 

Situating FCT/Abuja with the political and democratic framework of the new Nigeria Overall, considering the foregoing justifications and the historical context of the capital relocation, it is reasonable to assume that the military founding fathers and architects of Abuja, while formulating the Nigerian Constitution of 1999, deemed it appropriate to uphold the same principles to institutionalize the following “broad official aims for the new capital,” among others: “To provide for a physical symbol of national unity, and of Nigeria as a symbol of Pan Africa unity; and To provide a physical expression of the ideal constitutional democratic government.” 7 It is therefore plausible to argue that the Nigerian military generals may have intended to institutionalize the role and significance of FCT/Abuja as the true center of Nigeria’s national unity within the political fabric of the country.

They may have envisioned FCT/Abuja as a place where ethnic considerations would not dictate political power and where the genuine essence of Nigerian polity could emerge unhindered, as evidenced by the recent February 25, 2023, presidential elections. It is also warranted to suggest that this historical context and analysis of Nigeria’s new capital city policy, appear to align with the notion that the legitimacy of any individual aspiring to lead a diverse and significant country like Nigeria should be questioned, if they fail to garner at least 25% of the electoral votes in this “ethnically neutral zone” of the country, with above average income, voter education and awareness, and security atmosphere relatively free from voter intimidation and vote suppression.

For the Nigerian military generals, who once played an admirable role in nation-building, Abuja clearly represented a critical symbol of national pride and unity, above all else. Conclusion – FCT/Abuja as electorate- barometer of the nation’s true pulse and spirit By way of conclusion, it is hoped that this article has provided a unique shorthand history and perspective on the FCT/Abuja that most Nigerians may not know about, along with how this links to the current nationwide constitutional issue and debate about the 25% threshold of voters in the FCT/Abuja.

To prudently answer and understand this debate, one must decode the reasons behind the establishment of the new capital, its strategic location at the heartland of the country, and the lengths to which successive military administrations went to create a unique, nationally representative identity for the FCT/Abuja and its special placement in the 1999 Constitution. It is this article’s submission that the past Nigerian military administrations (1975-2007) may well have seen the FCT/Abuja project as a kind of legitimizing “litmus test” of the degree of acceptability of a presidential candidate for the country, since it was designed to be a “neutral microcosm” of Nigeria.

In this perspective, and until such a time that Nigerian politicians and leaders can be able to turn its rich multi-ethnic and cultural heritage into a positive force for change that it is, the emphasis on meeting the constitutional requirement of obtaining at least 25% of the votes in FCT/Abuja becomes crucial for a leader’s legitimacy. It serves as a testament to their ability to appeal to and garner support from diverse segments of the population, in a region of the country that is more secure, symbolizes true unity and represents a shared national identity about the progressive Nigeria we all want.

It is therefore my capital conclusion that the challenge to the February 25, 2023, presidential elections outcome highlights the constitutional interpretation of the FCT’s critical importance. The historical context of FCT/Abuja’s establishment aligns with the notion that its votes carry significant weight in determining the legitimacy of Nigeria’s leaders. FCT/Abuja serves as a barometer of the nation’s true pulse and embodies the ideals of national unity and democracy. The voice of people in the special Federal Capital Territory of Abuja must not be taken lightly or ignored.   

*Dr Morah, an author and researcher, wrote from Abuja