"There shall be a National Intervention Fund, which will be five per cent of the annual revenue accruing to the account of the Federal Government for the stabilisation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism and insurgency, in the first instance in the North East of Nigeria and any other parts of the country affected."

"There shall be a National Intervention Fund, which will be five percent of the annual revenue accruing to the account of the federal government for the stabilisation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism and insurgency in the first instance in the North East of Nigeria, North Central and North West and any other parts of the country."

There is not much difference between the above quotes, which are part of the amendments to the report of the Committee on Devolution of Power. They are not also the initial texts. Yet, even these amendments, refined to accommodate sensitivities and assuage fears of delegates from the south and north of the Nigerian divide, continued to generate heat and rancour among the delegates and have now been left hanging in the air.

It has thus become the unresolved conference contention! The National Intervention Fund (parts of which harboured the above quotes) was meant to cater for current and unforeseen emergency needs, natural disasters and a cushion buffer fund that can take care of terrorism and insurgency backlash, among others.

At the heart of the fund's creation is elder statesman and former Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations (UN), Professor Ibrahim Gambari. From the position of consensus rallying point and bridge builder, the scion of the Ilorin emirate now finds himself caught in the middle.

Delegates from a section of the country venomously accused him of "selling out" to the oil-rich areas whose delegates are in turn assailing him because they think he is part of the ploy to take five per cent of the Federation Account and put it in the hands of insurgents and their sympathisers from the upper eastern part of Nigeria.

How can the issue be laid to rest? Is the mutual suspicion over revenue allocation capable haemorrhaging the work of the confab? What are the positives in the long run? Gambari spoke to Foreign Affairs Editor of the Guardian, OGHOGHO OBAYUWANA, on this and other matters.

Most people saw the drama on TV - the controversies brought up by issues raised in your report on derivation and other related matters from devolution of power. What is really the matter?

If delegates put the interest of the nation above regional and ethnic divides, there is a real possibility that consensus can still be reached by the conference.

And, in this regard, the elements of such a consensus are contained in the brief report (which Chief Falae (Olu) tried to read on the floor of the conference but was vehemently interrupted while doing so).

I feel sure that any agreement that may be eventually made on this and related issues would have to be based on the elements of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, which I chaired.

It is unfortunate that when it has now come to the issue of sharing, then this fight broke out. Things were not meant to be this ugly...

It is not as simple as that. There have been reports alluding to the fact that you have become the hatchet man for the North; that you are clamouring for the actualisation of a so-called northern agenda...

This is unfortunate. I am surprised at what is happening regarding this issue. All my life, I have been a detribalised personality. Everyone knows this - even before my sojourn into the world of diplomacy - my background at the Ahmadu Bello University and all that.

Now at the confab, if you remember, I was always working to ensure that things did not fall apart. Starting from the work we did as part of the '50 Wise Men.'

Through and through, I have been working as the bridge builder and consensus-rallying figure. That was how we were able to go through the first hurdle, which had to do with brokering the rules.

Without the work of the elder statesmen in the house, you would not have the idea of 20 committees, and 19 committee reports sailed through.

I am championing the cause of Nigeria of which the North (including my Kwara State, the North Central geopolitical zone and the North as a whole) is constituent and indissoluble part.

And, as someone who has been Foreign Minister of Nigeria and the country's Ambassador to the United Nations for an unprecedented nearly 10 years, I have always pursued what I believe to be the best interest of Nigeria...Quite frankly, this furore over the emergency fund is quite unfortunate.

What is the way out of the controversy?

Oh I believe this lies largely with the refinement that has now been made to it but which has not was been given sufficient hearing. There has been too much sentiments raised on this third provision which is being singled out. The northern delegate think that having be made to lose further revenue through moving the money accruing to the oil producing areas from 13 to 18 percent, the five percent emergency funds should be dedicated to areas ravaged in the north and after all, the five percent is from the money accruing to the federal government, not what the entire country earns! The south feels that the fund should not be restricted to a section of the country. This especially the South South. Those from the south east and west took a slightly different position. Both points from either side are strong and persuasive. They underscore the need to have a time line set for it, so it should be time bound and not a forever fund meant for the north even when the problems of insurgency and its devastations would have bee n taken care of. Also about the possibility of it becoming another slouch fund for people to convert to meet personal needs thats why you have the refined text which has phrases such as "In the first instance" "Any other part" and the word "National" take a look at the text and you will see that these are the clinchers now. So to avoid further bitterness, we have now said the percentages would be filled by the federal government...

There has been constant mention of the consensus building group before the emergency fund problem cropped up. What was this group really doing to live up to its name?

Thank you. Anticipating the huge gap on the issue of derivation between the demands of delegates from Oil Producing States ( ranging from 100% to 21.5% )and those from non-oil Producing states (ranging from 13% to 15%,). The Consensus building Group ,whose membership on this occasion started with 3 representatives from each of the six geo-political zones, was expanded to take in representatives of Civil Society, Labour, Employers and Women Groups. Following some tough negotiations, a report, which was aimed at promoting consensus in the Conference was produced and I, as the Chairman, presented it to the Plenary. There were three key elements which were expected to be taken up as a package: 18% of Federation Account to be allocated according to derivation; 5% for solid mineral development and 5% for a Special National Fund for Stabilization, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism and insurgency, especially in the North East, North Central and North West. Although high stake politicking is to be expected on such an emotive issue, the extent to which local champions in the Conference reacted to what is after all a proposal for consideration and possible adoption by the Plenary was surprising. Worse still, several members of the Ad hoc Consensus Building Group who worked tirelessly together on and produced the Report began to attack aspects of it on arrival at the floor of the Plenary, including especially Kunle Olajide and former IGP Ibrahim Coomassie.

Any way, in my capacity as Chairman, I am through with that process...

As a recap, what can you consider as the critical breakthroughs of the conference?

We resolved the stalemate on the Rules of Procedure which threatened to end the Conference even before it began its substantive work. The 20 Committees established by the Conference successfully completed their work and their Reports were produced by consensus in almost all cases. The Conference has adopted, as amended, all but one of the Reports of the 20 Committees without recourse to voting. While it is true that the Conference is presently struggling with the last Report on Devolution of Power, all efforts are being made to reach a conclusion which is acceptable to most of the delegates. I have mainly spoken from the scope of work that I was involved with. The breakthroughs I have mentioned are not exhaustive.

Coming to your forte, what informed the interventions made with regards to Nigeria's foreign policy practice? what would be the way forward here?

Briefly, what informed the radical recommendations made therein include the need to re-professionalize the Foreign service and to re-position it as an elite service that is competitive in a rapidly globalising world. In other words, for our Foreign Service personnel, it can not be business as usual in the face of the enormous challenges facing our country, especially in the area of security and other core foreign policy goals and objectives. We also saw the need to return to the basics of our foreign policy objectives as articulated in the maiden address by our first and only Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafaw Balewa, to the UN General Assembly on 7 October, 1960, on the occasion of Nigeria's admission as the 99th member of the world body; while also recognising that since then, Nigeria has changed, Africa has changed and the global environment has changed. Hence, at the core of Nigeria's foreign policy and her external relations must be the relentless and unapologetic pursuit and enhancement of the security, welfare and well being of our citizens and in this regard, attending seriously, first, to the relations with our neighbouring countries, then West African region, the African continent and the rest of the world while also avoiding alignment "as a matter of routine" with any of the global power configurations. Badly needed today is rationalisation of our foreign aid and assistance and consolidating these into a single External Aid Agency, under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but which would effectively coordinate the disbursement of the funds and programmes of the help that we give African and other Third World countries. Henceforth, all our country's external aid would be subjected to rigorous cost benefit analyses and thus signal firmly that the days of "Father Christmas" approach are over. We have a new recognition that Nigerians in the Diaspora are real assets to the socio-economic, scientific and technological development of our country beyond the remittances that they make to the country. With regard to the latter, a recent World Bank Report shows that Nigerians in the Diaspora have remitted last year alone over US$22 billion to the country, a figure that would remain steady or grow in the next 3 years and surpass what Nigeria receives in annual Foreign Aid. To reciprocate the actual and even greater potential contributions of the Diaspora to Nigeria, it is time to enable them exercise their Constitutional voting rights, under rigorous and transparent conditions, while also creating a Diaspora Commission to more aggressively address their welfare and facilitate their efforts in support of our country's over all development.

In all, what should Nigerians expect from the National Conference?

What we have on hand is a well thought-out, well articulated policy recommendations on almost all facets of our country’s public and private sector activities which would lead to the promotion of a more united, peaceful, prosperous and more just country. Also, there has come up, a set of recommendations on the implementation of the Conclusions and Report of the Conference which gives time-lines and clearly delineates areas that can be implemented right away by the Executive arm of Government at national, state and local levels and those that require Constitutional Amendments and how these can be done, among others.