By Paul Asiodu
In recent days, social media is awash with “probably sponsored” articles and comments rejecting and claiming that there is an ulterior motive regarding the Indigeneship bill, currently before the House of Representatives.
While everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, they should also be wise enough to be thoughtful and critical to understand the malaise any legislation seeks to cure before joining the bandwagon, adopting a popular idea, trend or behaviour.
This recent “faux outrage”, reminds one of the same reaction when the tax reform bills were introduced. The people opposing it failed to recognise the significant legislative effort in Nigeria to overhaul the country’s tax system, as the bills aim to simplify the tax structure, modernize tax administration and boost revenue.
The proposed Indigene Status Bill while aiming to engender national unity and development, has faced significant opposition, primarily from groups like the Think Yoruba First Organisation Worldwide (TYF). These criticisms often frame the bill as an “expansionist agenda” designed to deprive “indigenes” of their birthright and threaten ancestral sovereignty, potentially leading to civil unrest.
Such perspectives underscore the deep-seated tribal sentiments and historical attachments to land and identity that permeate Nigerian society. However, a closer examination reveals that much of this opposition may stem from a lack of understanding, regarding the bill’s national scope and its alignment with global best practices.
The issue of indigeneity is not confined to Yorubaland; it is a national challenge affecting almost all parts of the country. The concept of indigeneity in Nigeria has evolved into a significant barrier to national integration and equitable development. Its ambiguous legal standing and arbitrary application have created a complex web of discrimination and conflict, profoundly impacting the lives of millions of Nigerians.
The absence of a clear, constitutionally defined “indigeneity” has allowed for the proliferation of arbitrary administrative rules at state and local government levels, effectively creating a system of “two-tier citizenship.” In this system, the rights and opportunities available to Nigerians vary significantly depending on their “state of origin” versus their state of residence.
Despite Section 25(1) of the Constitution, promising a single Nigerian citizenship and Section 42 expressly forbidding discrimination based on birth, Section 318(1) of the 2011 Constitution (as amended) paradoxically promotes “nativist rights” for those “born of the soil”.
The notion that “first in time is first in right” is frequently invoked to justify discrimination against long-term resident non-indigenes, making it difficult for them to find work and limiting their access to resources. This systemic ambiguity in defining indigeneity has led to the institutionalisation of discrimination, creating a profound legal and social schism. This is not merely an administrative oversight but a fundamental flaw that undermines the very foundation of national unity and the rule of law.
Globally, data reveals that 50 economies prevent women from transferring citizenship to their foreign spouses on an equal basis with men, and 28 economies prevent women from passing nationality to their children in the same way as men. Such gender-discriminatory restrictions limit women’s access to inheritance, property ownership, and formal employment.
Anecdotal evidence highlights the pervasive nature of this discrimination, such as the case of an Akwa Ibom judge reportedly rejected for a Chief Justice position in Cross River State despite being married there and living for decades. Another concrete example is the Abia State government’s dismissal of 80 women from Ebonyi State due to their non-indigenous status, even though many were married to Abia men. This occurred because administrative regulations often regard women as belonging to their natal Local Government, not that of their husbands.
Conversely, the historical election of a Northerner as mayor in Enugu in “good old days” suggests a period of greater inclusivity that has since eroded, underscoring the regressive nature of current practices.
The systematic exclusion of non-indigenes from key economic and political opportunities represents a significant underutilization of Nigeria’s human capital. When capable and talented individuals are routinely denied opportunities based solely on their “origin” rather than their merit, skills, or potential contribution, it leads to a profound misallocation of human resources, stifling innovation, reducing overall productivity, and impeding economic growth.
It also breeds deep resentment, frustration, and a pervasive sense of injustice among those denied their fundamental rights, contributing significantly to social instability and undermining the very ideal of a unified nation where all citizens are afforded equal opportunities and dignity.
Furthermore, it contradicts international human rights standards and treaties that Nigeria has committed to, undermining its global standing and internal social justice.
This suggests that a framework is a crucial, foundational step towards de-escalating the matter, directly and commendably addresses this critical and long-standing issue.
ABOUT THE BILL
To address this impasse, some members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) to guarantee indigene status to persons by reason of birth or continued residence for a period not less than ten years or by reason of marriage and for other related matters.
The proposed legislation sponsored by the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Benjamin Kalu, and co-sponsored by Hon. Ginger Onwusibe Hon. James Faleke, Hon. Blessing Amadi Hon. Regina Akume, Hon. Khadija Bukar Ibrahim and Hon Adbussamad Dasuki has passed second reading and currently before the committee on constitution review.
It seeks alteration of CFRN, 1999 (As amended), “Alteration of Section 31.Section 31 of the Principal Act is altered by inserting new subsections “(2) – (5)” –“(2) A citizen of Nigeria is an indigene of a State if he –(a) was born in that State and has lived in the State for a continuous period of at least 10 years; or(b) was not born in the State but has resided in a Local Government Area of that State for a continuous period of at least 10 years and can provide evidence of tax payment in that State for at least 10 years. (3) A person under subsection (2) of this section is entitled to apply to the Local Government Chairman for a certificate of indigeneship of a State. (4) A woman who is married to an indigene of a State different from her State of origin for at least five years becomes an indigene of that State and is entitled to all rights and privileges of an indigene of that State in cases of employment, appointment or election into any political or public office.
“In the case of divorce or death of a spouse, a woman remains an indigene if –(a) there were children born of the marriage or not; or(b) she elects to remain an indigene of that State. Alteration of Section 318.Section 318(1) is altered by substituting the interpretation of “belong to” with – “belong to” or its grammatical expression when used with reference to a person in a State refers to a person either of whose parents or any one of whose grandparents was a member of a community indigenous to that State or the wife or husband of such a person and such husband or wife shall continue to belong to that State upon dissolution of marriage or death of spouse.”
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON CITIZENSHIP AND LONG-TERM RESIDENCY
Understanding the global landscape of citizenship acquisition is crucial for evaluating Nigeria’s proposed reforms. Nations worldwide employ diverse legal frameworks to define who belongs and how belonging can be acquired, often reflecting their unique historical, demographic, and economic imperatives.
Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, and Naturalization. Generally, citizenship is acquired through two primary principles: jus soli (right of soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood), or a combination thereof. Naturalization serves as a common pathway for individuals who have established long-term residency and wish to acquire full citizenship.Jus soli, meaning ‘right of soil’, grants nationality or citizenship to anyone born within the territory of a state, regardless of their parents’ nationality. This principle is predominant in the Americas, with countries like Canada, the United States, and Brazil being prime examples.
The global landscape of citizenship laws is not static but dynamically evolves based on a nation’s historical context, demographic needs, and economic objectives. The selection of a particular system is often deeply rooted in historical context, such as the British Empire’s widespread adoption of jus soli versus France’s post-revolution shift to jus sanguinis before reverting.
These choices are also driven by specific national needs; for instance, France’s return to jus soli aimed to bolster its population after war, while the United States adopted jus soli as a nation of immigrants. This demonstrates that citizenship laws are not immutable, rigid constructs but rather flexible policy tools that can be adapted and reformed to serve evolving national interests, such as managing population demographics, stimulating economic development, or fostering social integration.
Canada: Practices unrestricted jus soli, granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on Canadian soil, regardless of parental immigration status. For naturalization, permanent residents must reside in Canada for 1,095 days (approximately 3 years) within five years of application. Canada’s Express Entry system can grant direct permanent residency, leading to citizenship in about 3 years.
United Kingdom: Grants birthright citizenship if at least one parent is a British citizen or permanent resident at the time of birth. Individuals can also apply for citizenship after 10 years of continuous residence.
Germany: Offers conditional birthright citizenship for children born after January 1, 2000, if at least one parent has legally resided in Germany for 8+ years and holds permanent residency. Naturalization is possible after eight years of legal residency, requiring language proficiency and a citizenship test. Germany has recently modernized its nationality act to accept dual citizenship in all cases, removing the requirement for foreigners to give up ties to their home country when naturalizing. Ireland: A child born in Ireland after 2005 becomes an Irish citizen if one parent is an Irish/British citizen or a lawful resident with 3+ years’ residence in the past 4 years. Naturalization typically requires 5 years of residence.
Portugal: Citizenship can be applied for after 5 years of legal residence and passing a basic language test. Argentina: Requires only 2 years of residency to become eligible for citizenship, along with an income and basic Spanish ability.
Peru: Allows naturalization after 2 years of residency. European Union (EU) Long-Term Resident Status: The EU Directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents sets conditions for obtaining a permanent and secure residence status after at least five years of legal residence in an EU country. This status grants a set of uniform rights, similar to those enjoyed by EU citizens, in terms of work, education, and social security.
Bangladesh: Foreign husbands can acquire Bangladeshi citizenship through naturalization after two years of residency, while foreign wives can obtain citizenship immediately upon marriage.
Nigeria’s current de facto jus sanguinis approach to indigeneity, while historically tied to ethnic distinctions, is demonstrably detrimental to its contemporary national integration and economic goals. The proposed bill, by incorporating elements of jus soli (birth + residence) and naturalization (residence + tax, marriage), aligns precisely with this adaptive nature of global citizenship laws. This indicates a necessary evolution for Nigeria to meet its pressing challenges of internal migration and national cohesion, directly refuting arguments that indigeneity is an unalterable “sacred cultural and historical bond”.
Benefits of Indigeneship Bill for Nigeria
The proposed Constitution Alteration Bill offers a transformative pathway for Nigeria to address its deep-seated challenges related to indigeneity, fostering national integration, stimulating socio-economic development, and strengthening human rights. The current indigeneity framework, with its arbitrary distinctions and exclusionary practices, actively undermines national unity.
This amendment bill currently before the house presents a crucial opportunity to dismantle these artificial barriers and foster a more cohesive national identity. By defining indigene status based on birth within a state (with continuous residence), long-term residence (with tax payment), or marriage, the bill shifts the paradigm from ancestral claims to demonstrable integration and contribution.
This approach reduces the “us vs. them” mentality that fuels inter-ethnic conflicts over resources and political power. By granting uniform rights across states, the bill would promote free mobility of people, goods, and services, fulfilling the constitutional duty to promote national integration.
This aligns with global experiences where inclusive policies for internal migrants or refugees, such as granting rights and access to services, lead to greater social and cultural integration, higher rates of intermarriage, and increased trust in institutions.
The bill’s proponents, including Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, emphasise that “laws must do more than sit on paper – they must solve problems”.
In conclusion, all well meaning Nigerians are urged to take concerted effort to educate the public on the long-term benefits of this bill and to foster a national dialogue that transcends primordial sentiments.
Overcoming the resistance to change requires emphasizing that national laws, when made, should not target a tribe, religion, or region, but rather serve the collective good of the entire nation. The passage and effective implementation of would not merely be a legal amendment; it would signify a visionary leap towards a truly integrated, equitable, and prosperous Nigeria.
It is a necessary step to dismantle the barriers that perpetuate division and to build a nation where all citizens can contribute to, and benefit from collective progress, fostering a shared sense of destiny that transcends ethnic and regional lines.
Paul Asiodu, a Legislative Analyst, writes from Delta State
