Politics of Political and Constitutional Reforms in Nigeria.
Andrew Heywood in his book, Global Politics (2010) identifies that politics, in its broadest sense, he defines it as the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. As such, politics is inextricably linked to the concepts of conflict and cooperation, which means politics is a social phenomenon with the characteristics of both struggle between opposing groups, parties and claims on one hand and cohesiveness, mobilization and organization on the other hand. On former hand, there is the constant existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs or opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live.
Likewise on the latter hand, people recognize that in order to influence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, they must work with others, with whom they share similar needs and values. This is why we can allude the meaning of politics as the authoritative allocation of values, in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another because at the art of politics is essentially to resolve conflict. In reality however, politics in this broad sense is better considered as the search for conflict resolution and not necessarily its achievement, since it is near impossible to resolve all conflict and satisfy all opposing groups especially in a multi-ethnic super diverse state like Nigeria. Nevertheless, when examining
Heywood’s broad definition of politics, it raises as many questions and equally provides answers for them. One of such is for instance, does ‘politics’ refer to a particular process in which rules are made, preserved or amended (that is, peacefully, by debate or protest)?
Similarly, is politics practiced in all social contexts and institutions, or only in certain ones
(that is, government and public life)? There are, in other words, a number of more specific definitions of politics; Indeed, it sometimes appears that there are as many definitions as there are authorities willing to offer an opinion on the subject. Heywood however resolves this conundrum that this broad definition nevertheless can be broken down into four categories which are politics as the art of government; Politics as public affairs; Politics as compromise; And politics as power.1 This paper will be seeking to examine the nature of the
1
Global Politics by Andrew Heywood 2010; Palgrave Macmillan
politics involved in Nigeria’s constitutional and political reforms. This will be done by examining the historical process of political and constitutional reforms in Nigeria, the individuals making these reforms, the areas of Nigeria political sphere where the reforms were made and the subsequent results and resolves of such reforms on the Nigerian populace.
Political and Constitutional Reforms in Nigeria
Before I proceed into Nigeria’s constitutional reforms through historical antecedents it is important to conceptualize the term constitution and why it is important for nation-states to draft such a document. The concept of a constitution dates to the city-states of ancient
Greece. The philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b.c.), whose infamous analysis of over 150
Greek constitutions set a paradigm for analyzing state governments based on who rules and in whose favor. According to Aristotle a constitution is the frame upon which the government and laws of a society are built. According to this paradigm a constitution may be defined as an organization of offices in a state, by which the method of their distribution is fixed, the sovereign authority is determined, and the nature of the end to be pursued by the association and all its members is prescribed. Laws, as distinct from the frame of the constitution, are the rules by which the magistrates should exercise their powers, and should watch and check transgressors. The English thesaurus dictionary explicates a constitution as fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.2 The creation of a defined set of rules and order that guide both the behavior of the state government and its citizens in form of a constitution provides a standard structure in which governance activities follow (ought of follow) a regularized pattern or order that lend themselves to predictability. According to Kalu. N. Kalu in his book ‘State Power, Autarchy and Political Conquest In Nigerian Federalism’ he states that The “structure” of governance can take two forms: The first is that of institutional design and the functional relationships that connects the various units to each other; and the second is the method by which political actors communicate (transact) across all institutional levels in the process of carrying out their formal obligations. These obligations according to Kalu, include law making, constituency representation, and overall responsibility for national welfare. In democratic
2
The Free Dictionary by Farlex; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constitution
politics as in most other forms of governmental systems, the Constitution provides the foundation as well as the mechanism for the distribution of power, authority, and incentives of citizenship. Kalu enunciates that the prevailing governmental system that exists in a state is as a result of the politics and circumstance of the state, as such it is important that a government designs its constitution and other statutory laws according to these circumstances for easy adaptability to rising issues, otherwise the constitution becomes fundamentally obsolete with an incapability to adapt to the changes that occur in the state. This will subsequently result in an abandonment of the institutions of the state and the rule of law, this problem is evident in Nigeria’s political and state development. With the above premise it is undeniable that the Nigerian constitution is a poorly derived document contains a lot of contradictions and convoluted ideals which not only points to the confusion in the Nigerian government, but also incapable of catering to the emerging political developments of the
Nigerian state. 3
Constitutional and Political Reforms before 1966
It is important to note that the present structure of the Nigerian state is a by-product of the experiences accrued and accumulated from Nigeria’s colonial experience as such it is impossible for this paper to come into fruition without an historical analysis. The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorate of Nigeria for administrative convenience by Fredrick Lord Lugard in 1914 marked the beginning of several constitutional reforms that altered the Nigerian state structure. It should be noted that during Nigeria’s colonial era, while some colonial officials were in favor of a balanced federalist state where the northern region did not dominate the south west and east others favored a unitary arrangement which southerners kicked against, on this fore mentioned basis it also is important to note that many southern elites disliked the amalgamation as it was perceived as an attempt to impose the northern rulers who were accused of a “superiority complex” on
Nigerians. The exit of Lord Lugard from office, saw the division of Nigeria into Southern and
Northern provinces by the new governor, Sir Hugh Clifford in 1922. Clifford attempted to introduce a unitary structure on Nigeria by abolishing some regional offices and creating central departments as a way to evolving a unified Nigeria and moving away from Lugard’s rather separatist structure. Clifford’s attempt failed and eventually he had to subject to regionalism which gave autonomy to homogenous communities. This era also saw the
3
‘State Power, Autarchy and Political Conquest In Nigerian Federalism’ by Kalu N. Kalu; Lexington Books 2008
introduction of elective principle in Nigeria which although had its limitations and left many
Nigerian disenfranchised it saw the formation of the first political party called the Nigeria
National Democratic Party (NNDP) under the leadership of the late Sir Herbert Macaulay in
1923. Sir Hugh Clifford also initiated the emergence of a legislative council for the colony of
Lagos and the protectorate of southern Nigeria where elected and appointed representatives had certain legislative powers. Before the arrival of Benard Bourdillon who initiated a framework for federalism in Nigeria, Donald Cameron's attempt was the colonial governor who attempted the formation of a unitary state structure. Cameron held the believe that for geographical and economic reasons a unitary structure was more viable for Nigeria. Although
Cameron was partially successful in his reforms which saw the victory of unitary over federal structure, his departure brought Bernard Bourdillon who further divided the country into three regions drawn along ethnic lines of the Northern Region, Western region, and the
Eastern Region.4 The division also granted further political participation to Nigerians as it saw to the establishment of a Regional Assembly to serve as a governing council for each region. This could be noted as the birth of federalism as a state structure in Nigeria. However although the framework for the regional system of government was already created by Sir
Bernard Bourdilion, the Sir Arthur Richard’s constitution officially documented it into the
Richard’s constitution when he took over from Bourdillon in 1946.
Sir Arthur Richard took over as the Governor of Nigeria in 1946 and entrenched the principle of regionalism in the new constitution. The constitution recognized the three distinct
Regions as the Eastern Region, Western Region and Northern Region. Sir Arthur Richards also introduced a central legislative council to serve the whole of Nigeria. Under this new system of regionalism, the Southern and the Western were united into one legislative council, although this significantly reduced the powers of the regional assemblies, they still held some deliberative powers. The Sir Macpherson’s Constitution which was introduced after his appointment as the Governor of Nigeria 1951, introduced a quasi-federalist state structure for
Nigeria which established a central legislative and regional executive council for the North,
West and South. Sir Macpherson also pushed for the adoption of complete federalism in
Nigeria, following the prior existence of a quasi-federalist state, this eventually became the case as the conclusion of 1953 constitutional conference in London was the adoption of a complete federal system with a clear division of powers between the regional governments and the central authority or government. With Nigeria becoming a federal state separated
4
The National Question and The National Political Reform Conference by Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa; 112-115
from the Western region, the Lyttleton constitution promulgated under the then governor of
Nigeria Sir Oliver Lyttleton, the constitution recognized a federal structure for Nigeria, hence becoming a federal nation. The new constitution however revised the powers between the central government and the regional governments for a truer system of regionalism for
Nigeria.
The end of colonialism after several agitations for independence saw Nigeria achieving self-rule in 1960. Nigeria therefore established an independence constitution under the leadership of Dr Nnamdi Azikwe who was a representative of the Queen of England who was still the head of state. The constitution however established Nigeria as a federation with three regions with the highest court of the country being the supreme court of Britain. The
1963 republican constitution however saw Nigeria cutting all administrative ties with Great
Britain, with the Queen of England ceasing to be Nigeria’s head of state. The highest court also ceased to be Britain but Nigeria’s own Supreme Court, subsequently granting Nigeria full independence by all ramifications.5
It should be noted that the constant changes before independence that eventually evolved the current federal system practiced in Nigeria was a result of many factors some of which include the need for higher participation of Nigerians in their own state affairs, the series of civil unrests and riots (Aba women’s riot of 1920, Kano Riot etc.) and the agitation for self rule by nationalists like Dr Nnamdi Azikwe, Sir Obafemi Awolowo, Tafawa Balewa.
There were also agitations for a restructuring of the state structure to create stronger federating units, this was as a result of the imbalance created by the larger size of the
Northern region when compared with the sizes of the South-West and South-Eastern regions.
Although, Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo were both committed federalists, they considered the Northern region too powerful and sought to reduce its power.
Dr Azikwe could be regarded as a quasi-federalist on this basis because he supported a strong central government which could be tied to need to cater to the needs of entrepreneurial Ibos who were scattered in different parts of Nigeria as artisans and clerks and they needed protection of a strong central government. According Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa Dr. Azikwe supported a federation with eight constituent units, while Chief Awolowo advocated nine constituent units (four in the North, three in the East and two in the West). Each section was clamoring for security against domination by others. The Northern politicians however saw
5
Federalism In Nigeria – Problems Facing Nigeria Federalism by DoubleGist; https://doublegist.com/problemsfacing-nigeria-federalism/
the need to maintain the current power structure as a need to gain protection from the dominance of the southerners who had the educational advantage due to higher literacy levels and free education policies many South-westerners benefitted from.
Constitutional and Political Reforms after 1966
The years that culminated the end of the first republic saw Nigeria, like many of its
African counterparts, having its fair share of military leadership, which has made and marred several aspects of the Nigerian state structure, political life and history. The first military intervention in Nigeria was led by Major Nzeogwu’s bloody coup in 15 January 1966 which saw the end of the government of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. The coup plotters cited misrule, ineptitude, lack of security and corruption of the government in the preceding five years as the reason for this coup. This coup only lasted for a few days however as there was a counter coup led by Aguyi Ironsi that saw his emergence as the head of state. Aguyi Ironsi came into office with the intent to allay fears of Igbo dominance of Nigeria after the Major
Nzeogwu led coup that was seen by many as the Igbo coup. Ironsi is therefore mostly famous for his attempt at the re-emergence of a unitary state structure for Nigeria. He promulgated the Decree Number 34 of 1966, which collapsed the regional federal structure of government and substituted it with a unitary one, with the intent of creating a more unified country. To achieve this, Ironsi's regime distributed key positions in a manner that largely reflected
Nigeria’s federal character. He appointed 4 governors to man the four regions namely, Lt.
Colonel Hassan Usman Katsina for the North, Lt. Colonel Francis Adekunle Fajuyi for the
West, Lt. Colonel David Akpode Ejoor for the Mid West and Lt. Colonel Chukwuemeka
Odumegwu Ojukwu for the East. To further his national unity agenda, it was planned that after some time, the appointed regional governors would rotate the offices among each other.
The Supreme Military Council (SMC) which was the highest governing body in Nigeria under the military, had nine members including the four regional governors, Service Chiefs and the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police. The 23 Permanent Secretaries' jobs in the Federal Public Service were shared among 8 Northerners, 7 Midwesterners, 5
Westerners and 3 Easterners. He also proposed a new Constitution that would prepare the country for a new democracy. Howevr, On 29th July, 1966, the Ironsi led government was toppled by a northern sponsored coup by a group of young military men which saw the emergence of General Yakubu Gowon as Nigeria’s head of state. It should be noted that although the Northern elite accused Ironsi of trying to create a unitary state structure where powers are concentrated at the center, for the convenience of domination by the Igbos, the
reversal of Nigeria to a federal state did very little to reduce the concentration of powers at the center.6
General Yakubu Gowon’s assumption of office saw the return of federalism to
Nigeria, which we tailored along the lines of the pre-existing four regions. This was done against the backdrop of heightened tensions between the eastern region led by Col
Odumegwu Ojukwu and the central government due to the large number of easterners that were killed in the July coup. In September of 1966 Gowon summoned an ad hoc constitutional conference to decide on the country’s political future. The conference was said to have had majority (except delegates from the mid-west) recommend a confederal system to replace the existing federal state structure. The confederation state structure was especially championed by delegates from the Eastern Region who insisted that any region wishing to secede from Nigeria should be allowed to do so. The conference was ended abruptly by Igbo killings in the north and the heightening tension between the Eastern region and the federal government. Gowon however not deterred in his mission to revert Nigeria to a federal state proceeded to propose a 12 state division of the country from the initial 4 regions. Although there is a federal nature to the newly created states, Gowon also divided the states by granting minority groups who had been demanding for their own states in the Eastern region since
1950s. This was done in an attempt to weaken the eastern region in anticipation of its secession which eventually culminated the Nigerian civil war that lasted for 30 months from
1967 to 1970 after Colonel Ojukwu declared the republic of Biafra.
After the civil war, Gowon embarked on several nation-building agendas, backed by the financial resources availed by the oil-boom windfall. The agenda consisted of a fresh constitution, reorganization of the armed forces, a census, the completion of the establishment of the twelve states announced in 1967 and elections to handover to a civilian government in 1976. Under the Gowon administration the structure of government was basically unitarian. At the apex of government was the all-military Supreme Military Council
(SMC), which was the lawmaking body for the entire federation. Its decrees could not be challenged in any law court. Most members of the SMC under Gowon were state governors.
There was also a Federal Executive Council composed of military and civilian commissioners. The states also had commissioners appointed by the governor. The states were practically reduced to administrative units of the federal government, which in several
6
Ironsi... A Forgotten Hero Keeps Returning by Alabi Williams http://www.igbofocus.co.uk/html/major_general_aguiyi_ironsi.html domains made uniform laws for the country. This basic structure of military federalism has, with amendments, remained the same during all military governments in the country.7 A palace coup saw the exit of General Yakubu Gowon’s government in 1975 on the count of corruption. The coup was led by General Muritala Muhammed, who maintained the federal structure of the country, began wide spread reforms in the Nigerian civil service, initiated a
50 member panel to draft a new constitution, created seven more states for minority groups and initiated the design of a new electoral system which saw the creation of the Federal
Electoral Commission (FEDECO). General Muritala’s terms of reference for the new constitution sought to remove the zero-sum winner takes all in Nigerian politics, increase political participation and accountability, clearly defining the functions of all arms of government and diffusion of political power to avoid over centralization of political power in the hands of a few.8 However, Muritala Muhammed’s assassination nearly six months after his assumption of office in a failed coup by Lt. Colonel Dimka saw the emergence of
Olusegun Obasanjo, Muritala’s deputy as the new head of state. He continued with his predecessors plan to revert Nigeria to a civilian government.
Obasanjo’s regime witnessed a reorganization of local administration and the enmeshment of local governments as the official third tier of the Nigerian federal structure.
In 1979 a new constitution tailored after the American presidential system emerged alongside the democratically elected government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari. The period of Shehu
Shegari’s government was marred by allegations of corruption, mismanagement, gross incompetence and the 1983 elections which was reported to be largely rigged and heavily contested by his major opponent Sir Obafemi Awolowo. This saw the exit of Shagari’s government and the emergence of General Muhammadu Buhari as Nigeria’s head of state.
General Muhammdu Buhari’s regime however short-lived is memorable for its highhandedness and intolerance. The regime suppressed criticism of the government by many restrictions placed on the press and the general populace, many political and labor organizations were outlawed. Most notable of General Buhari’s fiscal policies was the War
Against Indiscipline (WAI), promulgated to deal sternly with indecent public behavior, inadequate sanitation, corruption, and smuggling, while encouraging patriotism. This regime
7
The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook; http://www.photius.com/countries/nigeria/government/nigeria_government_the_1966_coups_civi~10021.ht ml
8
The Management of Transition to Civil Rule by the Military in Nigeria (1966-1996) by Chidi A. Odinkalu; http://books.openedition.org/ifra/634?lang=en was however toppled before he could present a transition agenda in 1985 by General Ibrahim
Babangida who cited reasons of high-handedness, inflexibility, abuse of human rights and deterioration of the economy as reasons for Buhari’s overthrow. The following years culminated one of the most tumultuous, ambiguous and longest reign of military government in the history of Nigeria. General Ibrahim Babangida’s era in office witnessed wide spread changes in the Nigerian political, social and economic life.
General Babangida adopted economic reforms leading to a market system and political reforms leading to democratic processes. There were also significant changes in military federalism. For the first time the highest ruling council in Nigeria ceased to be the
Supreme Military Council, rather it was referred as the Armed Forces Ruling Council with a heavier concentration of power on the hands of the federal government. General Babangida’s regime saw the removal of press censorship and the granting of freedom to many journalists who had been jailed by the previous administration. In his October 1 independence address of
1986, he announced the promulgation of a transition program which was eventually inaugurated 1987. The transition program included a lifting of ban of political activities, a drafting of a new constitution, establishment of a new electoral commission which led to the creation of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), and fresh elections which dated a handover of government to civilian rule in 1992. The Babangida administration is also notable for the creation of 11 more states to the existing 19 states to make a total of 30 states.
The draft of the new constitution of 1989 maintained Nigeria’s federal structure and didn’t alter many parts of the preceding 1979 constitution except the introduction of a two party system and the official inclusion of the newly created 11 states into the constitution. In the following years Nigeria was rocked by several religious, social, political and economic crises, some of which culminated the loss of many lives and two failed coups to overthrow the
Babangida government. As the 1992 hand-over date approached and the completion of legislative, state and local government elections, there was pressure on the Federal Council for a presidential election. Although the elections held, the Babangida government annulled the results of that election, claiming fraud, and postponed additional elections for a year. This resulted in the memorable June 12 election of 1993 which saw Moshood Abiola emerge as the rightful winner. Babangida again claimed fraud, and annulled the results of the second election, which was believed to be the first fair election held in the history of Nigeria.
Hundreds were killed in demonstrations, human rights and pro-democracy activists were arrested, and opposition newspapers were shut down. With the heightened tension in the
country, finally on August 27, 1993, Babangida “stepped aside”, appointing a civilian, Ernest
Shonekan, a civilian, as the interim president at his resignation.9 Ernest Shonekan’s government was interrupted barely three months after his appointment by General Sanni
Abacha. Abacha’s regime notable for its brutality and dictatorial tendencies dismantled all elected institutions, terminated all national and state assemblies, closed independent publications, banned all political activity, and suspended the constitution, even though he promised to return Nigeria to civilian rule In two years. General Abacha however, released a multiple-phase, political programme designed to return the country to civil rule in October
1998. Elements of the programme included the creation of 6 states (bringing the national total to 36) and local governments, local elections on a zero-party basis, lifting of the ban on political activities, formation of parties, phased elections on party basis into elective local, state and federal positions, resulting finally in the handover of power to an elected civilian president and the disengagement of the armed forces from power on 1 October 1998.
Elections to return to civilian rule were set for August 1, 1998, with a return date to civilian rule set for October 1, 1998. However, in April, Abacha became the only nominated candidate for the presidency. With heightened tension among the mass populace and suspicions that the Abacha government had no intention of stepping down, on June 8, 1998
Abacha mysteriously died of a heart attack, ushering in the government of Abdulsalam
Abubakar who was dedicated to healing Nigeria from its military trauma and returning power to a civilian government.
The exit of the Abacha regime saw the Nigerian politics evolving a new look with
General Abdulsalam who was committed to designing a fresh constitution for Nigeria. The
Abubakar government initiated an Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in
1998, which took charge of the elections that held later that year and early 1999. Abdulsalam
Abubakar also oversaw the process for the drafting of a new constitution largely based on the
1979 presidential constitution. Constitutional reform in Nigeria started immediately after return to civilian rule in May, 1999. The new drafted constitution included provisions for a bicameral legislature, the National Assembly, consisting of a 360-member House of
Representatives and a 109-member Senate. Although very similar to the Nigeria’s military era gave strong federal powers to the executive arm of government. As noted from the historical analysis above, during military rule, the environment was not very tolerant of debate, dialogue or widespread consultation. However, the return to civilian rule created a
9
Political History of Nigeria http://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/apcg/Nigeria/Unit4NigeriaHistory.html
conducive environment for the dialogue process to commence. The key actors in the dialogue process for constitutional reform have been civil society organizations, intergovernmental organizations, international organizations and government. The dialogue process for constitutional reform can be said to have started even before the formal inauguration of the civilian administration. The elections were conducted in 1998 and early 1999 without the promulgation of the constitution. The Constitution was only enacted into law only a few days to inauguration of the new civilian administration through Decree No 24 of 5, May, 1999. So, the contestants contested for positions with vague or no legal basis. Many people therefore criticized the 1999 Constitution like all other Nigerian constitutions as an imposition of the military. Hence a symbol of Nigeria’s dark military past. 10
Conclusion
Nigeria’s military and colonial past hovers like a dark cloud over her political and constitutional becoming. Starting with the lack of knowledge or proper consultation of the colonial masters who came to the region and simply lumped independent homogenous communities together for administrative convenience and economic reasons to the inability of
Nigeria’s so-called nationalists who took power from the reigns of the colonial authorities, to develop a unifying ideology to prevent their hard earned struggle for independence from degenerating to a dog-eat-dog game ridden with bloody ethno-tribal politics and sentiments, to the eventual emergence of the corruption ridden leadership of military governments that set Nigeria’s political development many years back. Even with Nigeria’s current civilian rule, there is still an over concentration of powers at the center with the constitution holding clauses after clauses that contradict each other, making the entire document mostly incomprehensible. Some of the lessons to be learnt from Nigeria’s constitutional and political reform processes are not far from obvious. They include the lack of interest of political leaders themselves in the promulgation of new constitutions. They have more interest in the assumption of political offices and the political power that accompanies it. The so-called civilian handover of 1999 had elections conducted without enactment of the law authorizing the constitution. The elections held without a constitution which was not released until a few days to the swearing in of the new elected representatives. Politicians contested for positions without the knowledge of the constitutional provisions and functions regarding the positions they were contesting for. Secondly, it is essentially difficult for Nigerians to relate to the
10
Abubakar's Transition to Civilian Rule; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/nigeria/history-06.htm
eventual document that is imposed on the country as the constitution, because of the absence of widespread debate or consultations that could have given alternative perspective to certain nation building aspects of the constitution. Thirdly the absence of a dependable leadership with the people’s best interests at heart has made constitutional reform processes over the years near impossible. If Nigeria has been bequeathed with the right hands to manage a numerous resources, it might have been able to maintain some of its strengths in places where the people are in the most need of the government. To move forward from here, Nigerians need an orientation shift, rather than a mere contradiction ridden document that identifies as a constitution, Nigerians need to participate in the working of a simple constitution that will represent not only the Nigerian ideal but serve as an integral part of our political culture both for leaders and the general populace.
References
1. Global Politics by Andrew Heywood 2010; Palgrave Macmillan
2. The Free Dictionary by Farlex; http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constitution
3. State Power, Autarchy and Political Conquest In Nigerian Federalism’ by Kalu N.
Kalu; Lexington Books 2008
4. The National Question and The National Political Reform Conference by Ibrahim
Ado-Kurawa; 112-115
5. Federalism In Nigeria – Problems Facing Nigeria Federalism by DoubleGist; https://doublegist.com/problems-facing-nigeria-federalism/ 6. Ironsi... A Forgotten Hero Keeps Returning by Alabi Williams http://www.igbofocus.co.uk/html/major_general_aguiyi_ironsi.html 7. The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook; http://www.photius.com/countries/nigeria/government/nigeria_government_the_1966 _coups_civi~10021.html
8.
The Management of Transition to Civil Rule by the Military in Nigeria (1966-1996) by Chidi A. Odinkalu; http://books.openedition.org/ifra/634?lang=en
9. Political History of Nigeria http://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/apcg/Nigeria/Unit4NigeriaHistory.html 10. Abubakar's Transition to Civilian Rule; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/nigeria/history-06.htm
