1. 0 IntroductionFederalism as it were. originated during the colonial era get downing with the merger of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914. It was introduced into Nigeria exactly by the 1946 Richardson fundamental law. The fundamental law introduced regionalism into Nigeria for the first clip. set uping regional assemblies in add-on to the already bing cardinal legislative assembly. However. the regional houses remained merely as deliberative and consultative organic structures holding no existent legislative competency. ’ They besides served as electoral colleges for the cardinal legislative assembly. The Macpherson fundamental law of 1951 brought greater federalism to the state. It increased regional liberty within a united Nigeria. It created larger and more representative regional legislative assemblies with increased powers. It besides created a coincident list with 19 topics on which both the regional and cardinal legislatures’ could pass and in the event of struggle the regional jurisprudence was to predominate. ‘The Lyttleton fundamental law of 1954 farther promoted federalism in the state. The fundamental law saw the full. love affair of Nigeria with federalism. therefore doing Nigeria a full- mature federation.
This was imperative because of the ‘Eight point programme passed in May. 1953 by the legislative council of northern part which would hold brought about a practical sequence of the northern part if it had non been implemented. Under the fundamental law. legislative powers were divided between the federal and regional legislative assembly. It was provided that if a regional jurisprudence is inconsistent with the commissariats of the federal jurisprudence. the commissariats of the regional jurisprudence in inquiry would be rendered nothingness to the extent of such incompatibility. The 1960 independency fundamental law retained the federal construction with the three legislative lists. to humor: ( Exclusive. concurrent and residuary ) . However. in order to safeguard the integrity of the state it was provided that the executive authorization of the parts should non be exercised in such a manner that it would hinder or prejudice the exercising of the executive authorization of the federation or jeopardize the continuation of the federal authorities in the state. The 1963 republication fundamental law retained the same federal construction and commissariats protecting federalism as contained in the 1960 fundamental law. Then 1979 presidential fundamental law expressly guaranteed federalism in-section 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) . These provinces ;
( 1 ) “Nigeria is one indivisible and insoluble crowned head province to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( 2 ) Nigeria shall be a federation dwelling of provinces and a federal capital territory” . In me spirit of federalism. the fundamental law guaranteed three degrees of authorities viz: federal. State and local authoritiess. While the fundamental law recognised the demand for discreteness or some grade of liberty amongst’ the assorted degrees of authorities. it besides recognised the demand for mutuality and harmonious and effectual authorities for the Nigerian federalism to be a worthy one. The 1995 Draft fundamental law extensively tackled one time once more the inquiry of federalism in Nigeria. pulling its lessons from past experiences.
The fact that a state with such a huge land mass and consisting of cultural nationalities with diverse backgrounds. could non populate under a unitary authorities for excessively long was non lost on the British colonial disposal. particularly from the clip of Governor Arthur Richards.
At the assorted advisory forums. particularly the Ibadan General Conference of January 1950. preparatory to the announcement of the Macpherson Constitution of 1951. the inquiry on the construction of Nigeria was pointedly asked and discussed: “Do we wish to see a to the full centralized system with all legislative and executive powers concentrated at the centre. or do we wish to develop a federal system under which each part of the state would exert a step of internal liberty? ”
But it was non until 1954. following the crises generated by the gesture for self-determination by Anthony Enahoro in 1953 and the constitutional conferences that resulted from them ( London Conference of 1953 and Lagos Conference of 1954 ) . that the inevitableness of a federation or federalism eventually dawned on everyone.
And so there is no addition stating that the federal agreement bequeathed to Nigeria both by the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 and Independence Constitution of 1960 was a via media between the centrifugal and centripetal forces that inhabited the disparate parts of Nigeria. Our establishing male parents like Nnamdi Azikwe. Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello settled for a fully fledged federation as the footing of our being as a state in 1954. In 1954. the Federal Republic of Nigeria was born Possibly. the greatest challenge confronting Nigeria today is the menace to national integrity. as centrifugal tensenesss. resource control and self-government. ethnicity based individuality political relations and spiritual cleavages have enveloped national consciousness. Since independency in 1960. national integrating has been a top precedence of authoritiess in Nigeria. The National Youth Service Corps ( NYSC ) Scheme. the Unity Schools. the Federal Character Principle. and State Creation are illustrations of province policies intended to accomplish this end. ( Enegwea & A ; Umoden. 1993 ; Alapiki. 2005 ; Ekeh & A ; Osaghae. 1989 ) .
It is clear that the result of integrating policies and programmes in Nigeria have fallen far below outlook. as aboriginal cultural truenesss are still deep seated. Cultural particularism is seen as the major cause of this failure ( Naanen. 1995 ) . and accordingly. suggestions on policy options are targeted to cover with this issue. This paper will research the usage of financial federalism as a scheme for integrating. Integration is a procedure that is anchored on values. and this can better be achieved through just financial federalism. The democratisation of financial federalism and course of study reforms to capture the true kernel of national integrity will heighten multiculturalism. the coexistence among different cultural entities ( Kymlicka and Norman. 2000 ) the procedure is linked to esteem for differences which relate to civilization. faith. political relations and values. that can be efficaciously harnessed and managed through gross. Therefore. the specific issue analyzed in this paper is. how can fiscal federalism enhance integrating in Nigeria?
1. 1BACKGROUND OF SurveyFederalism is the decentalisation of the administrative system designed to get by with the size. differences. distinctive features of the parts or province and/or cultural groups. Basically. federalism connotes a distinct territorial division of the assorted units so that they are originally related. They are organic in the sense that they are stated in the fundamental law. In other words. their several powers originated from the same beginning as those of the centre. The units hence have equal powers with the centre though such equality in non is footings of one to one. but in footings of originality. since the powers they exercise are non the creative activity of the centre. The relationship between the centre and the component units is non superior to the units in a federation ( Ailoje. 1997 ) . It has been asserted over the old ages that financial federalism or intergovernmental financial relation is concretely located within the definitional construct of federalism. though with economic blending. Therefore harmonizing to Akindele ( 2009 ) . “federalism could be taken to intend a system of authorities where gross and outgo maps are divided among the tiers/levels of authorities.
Therefore. financial federalism is one of the major classical rules upon which true and balanced federalism ought to rest. It shows really clearly that neither the federal nor the province or the local authorities in a true federation should depend on each other in transporting out the statutory duties and maps. which the nation’s fundamental law has assigned to it. This will paper examines financial federalism every bit good as the tremendous obvious challenges it poses to the Nigerian federation. which have resulted in series of agitations for the reappraisal of gross sharing expression and resource control in recent times. Federalism is the bedrock of democratic building for a state of Nigeria’s size and bewildering diversenesss. Like India. besides a federal province which has been justly described as a land of “million mutinies” ( Roy. 2002:2 ) . Nigeria is a profoundly divided and plural society. The civil order is known to hold many cultural groups. which bookmans have put at different figures ( Kirk-Green. 1969:4 ; Attah. 1987:393-401 ; Otite. 1990:175-183 ; Suberu. 1993:39/1998:227 ) .
Nigeria is. one of the most ethnically diverse states in the universe with good over 250 ethno-linguistic groups. some of which are bigger than many independent provinces of modern-day Africa In that wise. “Nigeria has a unique job non experienced by any province in the universe yesteryear or nowadays. The job is that of accomplishing solidarity in action and intent in the thick of 100s of cultural nationalities each exercising both centrifugal and centripetal forces on the cardinal issue of the state. edge in freedom. peace and integrity where justness reigns” ( Ojo. 2002:4-5 ) . This uniqueness creates “unique jobs unknown to the experience of other peoples in the world… no Western or Eastern civilisation has of all time evolved a political system that can get by with this mammoth job of hyper-ethnic instability syndrome” ( Onwujeogwu. 1995 ) . It is non surprising therefore that these cultural groups are ever in struggle and competition for scarce Resources. Indeed. this is non unexpected particularly between and among “ethnically defined constituencies” ( William. 1980:69 ) . The ground is that about by definition. cultural groups are in acute competition for the strategic resources of their several societies.
This is the instance in Nigeria and other plural and metameric civil orders. This is so because cultural groups are socio-cultural entities. see themselves culturally. linguistically or socially distinctfrom each other. and most frequently view their dealingss in existent or potentially counter footings ( Cox. 1970:317 ) . Group with more effectual tactics and schemes usually gain competitory advantages over other groups within their societies ( Fried. 1967:71-72 ) . Yet. this success is non without its liability ( Elliot. 1975:13 ) . This is why national coherence is more of a mirage in plural and divided societies than in homogeneous 1s. It is in this respect that Weiner ( Ogunojenite. 1987:224 ) argues that “developing nations’ cardinal job that is frequently more pressing than economic development is the accomplishment of integration” . It was in an effort to weld together her disparate ethno-religious and lingual entities that Nigeria opted for federalism in 1954 ( Ojo. 2002:4 ) .
The premise so was that. federalism is “a half-way house between separate independent provinces and unification” ( Beloff. 1953:131 ) . It is a procedure of seeking integrity. without uniformity. more so. where size. cultural and lingual diverseness. historical particularism and considerable decentalisation prevails as in Nigeria. However. since 1954 when the foundation of classical federalism for Nigeria was laid. the system is still convolving. Nigeria’s cultural makeup still remains what Furnival ( 1948:304 ) . calls “in the strictest sense a potpourri ( of peoples ) for they mix but do non combine” ( Joseph. 1991: 32-33 ) . The Nigerian undertaking remains questionable despite old ages of federal pattern. Harmonizing to The Economist. ( June 19-25. 1999 ) . “Nigerians have no common vision of a nation-state called Nigeria. no sense of citizenship. The name and the football squad are about the lone things that unite them. Even the football players nevertheless. superb single participants though they are. make non work as a squad. It is the same with the state ( Odion-Akhaine. 2002:26 ) .
Forty- nine old ages after ‘flag independence’ . the state still totters on as a yearling. frequently pulled down by joint individuality and integrating crisis. To perceivers alarm. Nigeria’s federalism has remained fragile. about impossible. This is mostly due to the consecutive disposals antipathy to true federalism. equity and good administration. The state is besides for good assailed by a funny and dejecting distribution crises triggered by a doubtful expression for the sharing of somehow existent and someway elusive national bar ( Ojo. 2009:6 ) .
In position of the foregoing. and as will glaringly be analyzed in this paper. clash and tenseness among the over 250 cultural groups are perennial phenomena. Cultivation of national mentality has unwittingly given manner to a continued tepid attitude to nation-building by the defeated ‘nations’ whose emotions are stirred by the clandestine tribal organisations organizing the races in the hot race for relevancy within the civil order ( Oladesu. 2002:14 ) . In a nutshell. the impact of all this is that. from independency in 1960 to the beginning of the civil war on July 1. 1967. Nigeria had a really low grade of national coherence. its diverse cultural nationalities are looking inwards to themselves for political relief and endurance in an incoherent civil order. Socio-political integrating was further undermined by the deficiency of meaningful cosmopolitan symbols ( common heritage and common historical yesteryear ) . for illustration that could hold bound the Nigerian civil order together ( Faseun. 2002:8 ) . 1. 2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Giving the predating background of the survey it is germane to observe that consecutive authorities at all degrees in Nigeria have tried to happen clip the best policy of financial federalism However despite the commendable an worth while nonsubjective and political orientations to a big extent creates an asymmetrical relation among the assorted authorities units the necessity the demand to happen out to what extent the relationship between the grades of authorities.
While it is accepted that human being non construction or establishment are responsible and in fact they carry out relation between authorities finance in what it has emerged as the most critical component of these interaction as false important place in Nigeria federal system.
To this terminal is to understand why critical and content issues of financial power and control in Nigeria financial federalism has resulted in intensifying the inquiry of gross right and financial legal power. The Federal construction of Nigeria is believed to be “a bad matrimony that all disfavor but daring non go forth. and that there are possibilities that could interrupt the unstable equilibrium in Abuja” ( Ogbe. et Al. 2011:196 ) . The dominant conceptual and legal foundation for Nigerian internal political geographics is federalism. A federal agreement was expected to be instrumental for hammering national integrity out of the plural society and at the same clip in continuing the separate societal individualities cherished by its constituent parts. Adoption of federalism non defying. Nigeria’s political system has continued to run with minimal coherence ( Ola. 1995 ) . Rivalry basically instigated by cultural common intuition progressively weakens the cloths of Nigerian Sovereignty. This has culminated in the Nigerian Civil War. It has besides dragged the nation-state into the turbulent June 12 political crisis which has wholly made Nigerian sovereignty frail and fragile ( Ojo. 1989 ) .
Fifty two old ages after independency. Nigeria still battles with one of the major fall-outs of federalism. the political relations of seeking to pacify all subdivisions of the civil order. This has become necessary because success to national places and resources are limited at the single degree. This is as a consequence of the multiethnic nature of the society. Harmonizing to Ola. different authoritiess that have governed this state have at one point or the other derived assorted methods to get by with this of all time present job of power distribution in both the political and economic domains. Therefore. there have been accusals and counter accusals from all subdivisions of the civil order. as to how powers are being distributed or how they ought to be distributed ( Ola. 1995 ) . Federalism is a system meant to incorporate people in a society who are diverse ethnically. culturally. geographically and evenreligiously.
It hence becomes imperative that one time a authorities is in topographic point. it must endeavor to adequately and equitably distribute powers. maps and resources among these diverse groups. But in Nigeria. there are cases where authoritiess have openly violated this rules of federalism. Suffice it to state that in theory. Nigeria can be said to be runing the federal system of authorities. whereas in existent pattern. the state is be givening towards a unitary system. Therefore. the job with federalism in Nigeria is the mix-application or non-application of this clause particularly as it has to make with power distribution ( Awa. 1977 ) . Power distribution is a volatile issue which if non decently handled could take to assorted signifiers of crises which are bound to harvest up. Nigeria has non been forthright using this rule to the missive and the consequence of this has been the heightening of cultural tenseness. common misgiving among cultural groups. minority job. clamor for an reply to the National inquiry et-cetera. 1. 3 RESEARCH Question
The survey intend to supply replies to the undermentioned inquiries ( I ) Could financial federalism challenges be responsible for hapless national integrating in Nigeria? ( two ) What are the factors suppressing or advancing the rules and pattern of financial federalism in Nigeria?
1. 4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDYThe overall aim of this survey is to look into the relationship between financial decentalisation and national integrating in Nigeria. The specific aims are to:
( I ) Examine the development. construction and patterns of financial federalism in Nigeria ; ( two ) Investigate the implicit in factors advancing or suppressing the true pattern of financial federalism in Nigeria ; ( three ) Determine the extent of financial decentalisation in Nigeria ( four ) To analyze the issue of survey intergovernmental financial relation in Nigeria ( V ) To set up the imperctive of financial federalism as a mean to development. ( six ) To place the map that affects the smooth operation of financial federalism in democratic administration Nigeria ( seven ) To proffer step that could be put in topographic point as possible solution to Nigeria inter governmental financial jobs.
1. 5 SGINIFICANCE OF STUDYThis survey will be of great benefit to Nigeria. This is because it will be exposed to the challenges it is confronting on incorporating each geo-political zone of the federation. It would besides be of great significance to research workers by manner of doing them cognizant of jobs that have been uncovered by these research workers. so that they would cognize where to get down from in their subsequent research work in the country of financial federalism and national integrating in Nigeria. It would besides be utile to university pupils like pupils of Fountain University when making a likely research. The survey would be important to policy shapers and policy implementers. as they would do usage of the findings and recommendations of this survey
1. 6 SCOPE OF STUDY
The survey is on financial federalism and national integrating in Nigeria. But due to the fact that the history of financial federalism is big and broad. the research worker decided to focus on the research on the two term civilian disposal of former president Olusegun Obasanjo between the twelvemonth 1999-2007
1. 7 Methodology
The research will be conducted utilizing secondary materials/sources such as text editions. diaries. newspapers articles. magazines. and the cyberspace.
1. 8 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDYThere has been a revival of involvement in many parts of the universe in jobs of multi-level authorities finance. While there are several grounds that financial decentalisation has been adopted around the universe. the common ground actuating much of the research on financial decentalisation is its possible to better the public presentation of the populace sector and thereby enhance chances for higher growing. Established federations in developed states have been the traditional focal point of political research on financial federalism. Theoretically. financial decentalisation is expected to further growing by reassigning passing power to develop each part of the federation that are best equipped to run into local demand adequately. However the function of financial federalism as a agency to further growing and development has been questioned in recent literature. Much of the new literature points out that decentalisation can be unsafe. particularly in developing states. This survey is hence. of import for a figure of grounds. First. though the literature on financial federalism has blossomed over the old ages. yet these surveies have focused more on developed states ( Agiobenebo. 1999 ; Olowonini. 1999 ; Anyanwu. 1999 ) . Second. the survey establishes a foundation for policy-makers for sequencing reforms of authorities in developing states.
1. 9 DEFINITION OF TERMSFederalism:Federalism in Nigeria refers to the degeneration of federated self-governance by the West African state of Nigeria to its first-level subdivisions. presently known as provinces. This is the decentalisation of the administrative system designed to get by with the size. differences. distinctive features of the parts or province and/or cultural groups. Fiscal Federalism:
The division of the taxing and expenditure maps among degrees of authorities National Development:The measure by measure method and procedure of specifying. developing and sketching assorted possible classs of actions to run into bing or future demands. ends and aims for a state or a big organic structure of people associated with a peculiar district. frequently sharing similar cultural backgrounds. imposts and languag Independence:
Freedom from control or influence of another or others
National integrating:National integrating is the consciousness of a common individuality amongst the citizens of a state. It means that though we belong to different castes. faiths and parts and talk different linguistic communications we recognize the fact that we are all one. This sort of integrating is really of import in the edifice of a strong and comfortable state.
Integrity:An undivided or unbroken completeness or entirety with nil desiring to interrupt off.
Cardinal Goverment:This is non merely the first but the mega-government which exercise sole powers and its superior to both the State and Local Governments.
Goverment:This is the bureau of the opinion category which is charged with the duty of exerting the province powers on behalf of the people.
Aims:This is the end-result to which an organisation or government’s activity is to be directed. Aims are hierarchal in nature and are determined or formulated after economic societal and political forces impacting the organisation have been appraised.
Development:It is the qualitative and qualities. self-reformation of adult male that applies to whole societies and people. It means the remotion of obstructions to the imperfect or qualitative transmutation of adult male and such obstructions include hungriness. poorness. ignorance. disease. mal-nutrition. unemployment. to advert but a few.
Administration:Administration is determined action taken in chase of witting intent. It is the systematic ordination of personal businesss and the deliberate usage of resources. aimed at doing those things happen which we want to go on and at the same time forestalling developments that fail to square with our purposes. It is the marshalling of available labor and stuffs in order to derive that which is desired at the lowest cost in energy. clip and money.
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL Relations:The interactions that exist among assorted levels/tiers of authorities within a province and finally the province in inquiry has to be associated with a Federal system.
1. 10 REFRENCE
Abia. B. E. ( 2006 ) . Understanding Nigerian Government and Politics 2nd erectile dysfunction. : Lagos. Gofaflesh Publications.
Adilieje. C. ( 2003 ) . Issues in Nigerian Federalism in Akinjide Osuntokun et Al ( ed. ) Issues in Nigerian Government and Politicss: Ibadan. Rex Charles Publications.
Agbodike. C. C. ( 1998 ) . Federal Character Principle and National Integration in Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria: Ibadan. Spectrum Books Limited.
Awa. E. O. ( 1976 ) . Issues in Federalism: Ethiope Printing Coorporation. Ringing Road. Benin City. Nigeria.
Awolowo-Dosunmu. O. ( 1994 ) . Observations on Nigerian Federalism in Elaigwu. I. et Al ( ed. ) ( 1994 ) Federalism and Nation-Building in Nigeria: The Challenge of the twenty-first Century: National Council on Inter-governmental Relations. Garki. Abuja. Nigeria.
Awolowo. O. ( 1968 ) . Way to Nigerian Federalism: Ibadan. Oxford University Press.
Azikiwe. N. ( 1965 ) . The Political Blue Print of Nigeria: New Jersey. Prentice-Hall.
Dye. Thomas R. ( 2000 ) . Top down Policy Making: New York. Chathan House Publishers.
Elaigwu. I. J. ( 1993 ) . Nigerian Federalism: Its Foundation and FutureProspects in Onoge. F. O. ( ed. ) . Nigeria the Way Forward. Proceedings and Policy Recommedations of the First Obafemi Awolowo Foundation Dialogue: Ibadan. Spectrum Books Limited.
Elaigwu. I. et Al ( ed. ) ( 1994 ) Federalism and Nation-Building in Nigeria: The Challenge of the twenty-first Century: National Council on Inter-governmental Relations. Garki. Abuja. Nigeria.
Eleazu. U. O. ( 1977 ) . Federalism and Nation-Building: The Nigerian Experience. 1954-1964: Devon. Arthur H. Stockwell Limited.
Ekekwe E. ( 1986 ) . Class and State in Nigeria: Lagos. Longman.
Federal Character Commission ( 2005 ) . 10th Annual Report: Abuja. Nigeria.
Federal Republic of Nigeria ( 1989 ) . The Fundamental law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Abuja. Federal Government Printer.
Federal Republic of Nigeria ( 1999 ) . The Fundamental law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Abuja. Federal Government Printer.
Forrest. T. ( 1993 ) . Politics and Economic Development of Nigeria: Boulder. Colorado. West View Press.
Fredrich. Carl ( 1996 ) . Federalism and Opposition in Government Vol 1 adopted from Dare. L. O. ( 1979 ) . Positions on Federalism in Akinyen. A. B. et Al ( ed. ) . Reading on Federalism: Lagos. Nigerian Institute of International Affairs ( NIIA ) .
Gambari. I. A. ( 2008 ) . The Challenges of State Building: The Case of Nigeria. A presentation at the first twelvemonth anniversary talk of Mustapha Akanbi Foundation.
Human Right Watch ( 2006 ) . They Do Not Own This Topographic point: Government Discrimination against Non-Indigenes in Nigeria: Human Right Watch Reportvol. 18 No. 3 ( A ) .
Joseph R. A. ( 1991 ) : Democracy & A ; Prebendal Politics in Nigeria ; The Rise & A ; Fall of the Second Republic: Ibadan. Spectrum Books.
Kincaid J. ( 1995 ) . The Journal of Federalism: intl publius. oxfordjournals. org Mackintosh. J. P. ( 1962 ) . Federalism in Nigeria: Political Surveies. 10
Mark P. T. ( 1986 ) . Fiscal Federalism: University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Mills. C. W. ( 1956 ) . The Power Elite: New York. Oxford University Press.
Mosca. Gaetano ( 1939 ) . The Governing Class. translated by Haman. D. Kahn: New York. McGraw-Hill. P50.
Federalism and pursuit for regional integratingJanuary 9. 2012 by Soyombo Opeyemi
Jimoh. A. ( 2003 ) . Fiscal Federalism The Nigerian Experience. Paper delivered at the meeting on Fiscal Policy and Growth in Africa. Fiscal Federalism. Decentralization and the Incidence of Taxation. Ad-Hoc Expert Group Meeting 7-9 October 2003. UNCC. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Economic Commission for Africa
Okunrounmu. T. O. ( 1996 ) . Fiscal Federalism: Revenue Allocation System in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. CBN/World Bank Collaborative Study. Proceedings of the Workshop on Nigeria Prospects for Development A. K. A Vision 2020. . Abuja. April 15-17. 1998
Olowononi. G. D. ( 2000 ) . An Evaluation of Revenue Allocation Formula in Nigeria. NCEMA Policy Analysis Series. Volume 6 No. 2. Page 107-140.
Olusoji. M. O. & A ; Magbagbeola. N. O. ( 1997 ) . Horizontal Revenue Allocation among States in Nigeria: Lessons of Experience.
Journal of Economic Management. 4 ( 2 ) : 1-30. Phillips. A. O. ( 1971 ) .
Nigeria’s Federal Financial Experience. The Journal of Modern African Studies. 9 ( 3 ) : 389-408
RMAFC ( 2003 ) . State and Local Governments 2003 Revenue Allocation indices. Abuja: Gross Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission
Salami O. A. ( 2007 ) . Fiscal Federalism and Revenue Allocation in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Journal of Development Perspectives. Vol 2. No 2: 1-33.
Sanni O. ( 2010 ) . National revenue enhancement policy is counterproductive – Expert. Nigeria Tribune. Friday. 21 May 2010
