The 1999 Constitution And The Management Of Indigene-Settler Crisis In Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT In Nigeria, relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution prescribe ways to manage intergroup relationships and contentious issues among constituent parts within the realm. However, the constitution is not definitive in specifying statuses of indigenes and/or settlers, thereby opening those sections on „indignity‟ to misrepresentation and abuse, occasioning communal crisis in Jos since 2001. Drawing heavily on sociological and political perspectives, extant literature on indigene-settler has focused on the causes and management of the Jos crisis neglecting the dysfunctional structural template embedded in the Constitution. This study, therefore, assessed the contradictory nature of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution regarding indigene-settler relationship, how it has exacerbated the crisis in Jos and the effectiveness of constitutional provisions in quelling the crisis. The study adopted Strauss and Corbin‟s grounded approach and the qualitative research design. Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. Key informants interviews were conducted with seven members of the Constitution Review Committee drawn from the National Assembly, five members representing Plateau State at the National Assembly, four constitutional lawyers and12 leaders from the major ethnic group associations resident in Jos. Furthermore, two respondents drawn from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and two naturalised citizens resident in the city were also interviewed. Other primary sources include the 1999 Constitution and key judicial decisions. Secondary sources were newspapers and newsmagazines. Data obtained were content analysed. The gaps in, and contradictory nature of sections 14 (3), 25 (1), 45-46 and 147 (3) on the status of indigene-settler in the 1999 Constitution is the base of the myriads of crises plaguing Jos since 2001. Specifically, the provisions of sections 14 (3) and 147 (3) neither envisaged the gravity and complexity of the crisis elicited by a convoluted indigenesettler relationship in Jos nor the far-reaching implications for safeguarding citizenship and fundamental human rights in Nigeria. The cases of Festus Okoye & ors v. FGN & ors, (2004) and Anizaku & ors v. Nasarawa State Governor & ors (2010) failed to get judicial definition for indigeneship and deterred governments from using the indigenesettler dichotomy as basis for assessing socio-economic and political opportunities like education and employment. These stoked renewed crises in Jos in 2004 and 2010 respectively. Contradictory administrative, political and military responses further exacerbated the crisis. The inability of successive governments to implement the recommendations of the various judicial commissions of inquiry continues to fan discord between and amongst groups in the city. Interviews revealed that the deployment of these constitutional provisions such as the issuance of letter of indigeneship to certain categories of Jos residents aggravated the crisis. Interviewees also clamored for amendment to Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the 1999 Constitution in order to eradicate ambiguities, make relevant provisions justiciable, and enhance the overall quality of citizenship.