And while we are still talking about the best economic philosophy and policy for a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation like Nigeria, it is meet to report on a most intriguing and pleasant development on the political front. The debate about federalism and its most suitable form for Nigeria is not about to go away. All those who believe that the debate has died a natural death or has repaired to strategic abeyance with the advent of a South-west presidency are in for a rude shock. In fact, they are wrong, dead wrong as The Nigerian Tribune would put things in another context. The cynical view abroad is that all is quiet on the Western—and federalism—front because the Yoruba people have got what they want: The Nigerian presidency. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
The intellectual progenitor of the debate, or what is known as the ur-text, was written about eighty years ago in 1945 when the youthful but intellectually endowed Obafemi Awolowo completed the manuscript of his path-breaking book, The Path to Nigerian Freedom, which was published in 1947. Ever since, it has remained the locus classicus and guiding light of the debate. Just as governance in Nigeria itself has undergone several political experimentations in the intervening eighty years, the debate on federalism has also undergone several mutations, modifications and emendations. It is however in the Fourth Republic with its military-ordained constitution and particularly in the last twenty years that the debate has assumed a frantic and frenzied urgency with several stakeholders, scholars, dedicated groups and interventionist conferences wading into the matter.
This column has just stumbled on a collection of essays written on the topic which is bound to rekindle interest in the matter and ignite intellectual passion on the vexed issue of federalism in Nigeria when it leaves the press. Put together by Professor Segun Gbadegesin, a leading Nigerian academic philosopher and foremost theorist of politics and traditional governance, it is essentially a compilation of articles in his column for The Nation newspaper written between 2006 and 2020 when he finally signed off. Titled, Envisioning The Nation, the advantage of reading these important ruminations in book form is that it allows one to follow Gbadegesin’s arguments in their scholarly elaborations, clarifications and amplifications as they shade federalism in Nigeria and its discontents. The result is a master class of elucidation and expository writing which confirms the author’s reputation as one of Nigeria’s leading thinkers.
A combination of a traditional griot and scholar-savant, Gbadegesin writes without affectation and with a deceptive flair and simplicity of expression which makes his occasionally weighty pronouncements and candid bombshells quite some music to the ear, in the best tradition of his philosophical forebears. Even when he is being critical, his objections are couched in diplomatic rectitude and judicious restraint. As it should be expected of a notable professor of political philosophy, his knowledge of his subject-matter is awesome and he could range from the transformations of the Swiss cantons from the sixteenth century to full citizenship in the nineteenth century to the pitfalls of American constitution making and the perpetual plea for a more perfect union.
Perhaps the greatest gem and revelation of this compilation of essays is the foreword by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu which was written when he had already assumed office as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This forthright intervention etched in sober statesmanship showcases Tinubu’s forte as a master strategist acutely aware of the nuances and intricacies of the federalist debate in all its contending and countervailing necessities, a practical requirement for the presidency of a nation held hostage by a fractious and polarizing political elite.
Strenuously anxious not to be seen as partisan, Tinubu makes the crucial and critical distinction between the political activist who must see things the way he feels they ought to be and the pragmatic politician who must deal with the realities as they are. He advocates the spirit of give and take which has allowed some progress to be made in the federalist conundrum and cautions against the debate degenerating into abuse and name calling which can only harden positions and make negotiations impossible when matters eventually get to the bargaining table. Not a few of his activist comrades and former trench-mates will retort that their intellectual firepower also has its uses. But it is still morning on creation day. This book is recommended reading for all those interested in the future of Nigeria.
A politician, Ochiagha Reagan Ufomba, speaks on political restructuring, the fight against terrorism, and his vision for transforming Abia State. Excerpts:
Nigeria’s economy has been struggling under inflation, currency depreciation, and unemployment. In concrete terms, what steps would you recommend to stabilise and grow the economy?
First, subsidy is gone forever, and government must make its impact felt by establishing a Petroleum Subsidy Trust Fund (PSTF) rather than sharing 100% with the federating units. At present, proceeds are looted down the line, while the blame reverberates only at the centre. Huge allocations to local governments are either invisible or have little impact.
Second, the Central Bank must return to orthodox monetary policy and end fiscal overreach. Currency stability comes from discipline. Nigeria needs a productivity-led growth model, with heavy investment in value-added manufacturing and agro-processing to reduce import dependence. In our 2025 budget, only N11.752 billion is earmarked for this critical sector. Youth-targeted skills acquisition, tied to credit and market access, can transform our demographic bulge into an economic dividend. Without this, inflation will remain merely a symptom of deeper structural weakness.
Critics say Nigeria is too reliant on oil revenues. How would you diversify effectively in today’s climate?
First oil is God’s gift to Nigeria, we couldn’t have ignored it. Diversification must move beyond rhetoric. Our comparative advantage lies in agriculture, solid minerals, and services. Until recently, when Dangote and a few others built refineries, government was playing a double game, the biggest importer of refined petroleum products, while discouraging private importation. That contradiction crippled us.
I would establish special agro-industrial processing zones linked to rail corridors, and insist on local refining of solid minerals before export. This is the same model that transformed Malaysia and Vietnam.
What is your view on the recent calls for political restructuring in Nigeria?
Restructuring is no longer an ideology; it’s a survival strategy. Some see restructuring as division of the country. It is not. Ironically for the antagonists, when the plugs of their cars are not firing well, they change it. I once proposed scrapping the states and replacing them with regional and local government structures, with each zone represented by six to ten members in a unicameral legislature. We are far too wasteful.
A federation that functions like a unitary state is structurally defective and cannot endure. We must devolve powers — particularly in policing, taxation, and infrastructure. Tell me the business of Federal government in agriculture, mining, and even roads when they have no right to ownership of land. Regions, or states as in the present circumstances, must control their resources, pay a fair share to the centre, and compete for investment on merit.
Some fear restructuring could lead to disintegration. How do you respond?
As I said earlier, restructuring is not thesame thing as division. Fear thrives better in ignorance. These fears have lingered since 1959 or more. Where has that led us? Nowhere. Looking back, some of the mutineers of 1966 must have regretted killing General Ironsi over the allegation of decreeing a unitary system. Today, we are still holding the stick at both ends in utter confusion.
A properly negotiated federation strengthens unity because every region feels ownership and responsibility. Ironically, resisting restructuring fuels separatism. Strong local economies mean a stronger Nigeria.
Nigeria continues to battle terrorism and banditry. What would you do differently if in charge of security strategy?
You know I cannot be because I am a bloody civilian. But with common sense. The greatest injustice we inflict on ourselves is allowing terrorism fighters to act as judges in their own case. We pamper and deodorise terrorism as if it were our friend and the 37th state of the federation.
We must separate terrorism from common criminality in intelligence work. Today, a farmer’s land is destroyed by cattle, he protests, and he gets slaughtered. Government brands it “farmers/herders clash.” Who does that? Where are our laws on trespass, unlawful possession of arms, and land rights?
For decades, we have been told Boko Haram is “decimated.” My question is — how many are they? When will they be completely defeated? Hypocrisy is a disease.
The solution is to create state police under federal oversight, formalise local vigilantes, and above all, target the financing of terrorism through cross-border financial intelligence.
Some argue that military solutions alone cannot solve terrorism. Do you agree?
Absolutely. You can’t bomb an ideology out of existence. But neither should terrorism be treated with kid gloves. Punishment for death is death; you can’t kill only to be pampered and pardoned. That is God’s work, not man’s.
Counter-terrorism must therefore combine force with socio-economic deradicalisation – restructuring, resource control, job creation, education, and community engagement. Giving farmers in the North-East and Central safe access to their land is as much a security measure as any military operation. Only restructuring can create the needed sense of belonging.
Turning to Abia State, critics say it has underperformed despite its human and natural resources. What would your blueprint for transformation look like?
I don’t speak of a “would-be blueprint.” I already had one, built on four pillars: industrialisation, agricultural value chains, infrastructure renewal, and human capital development.
Third-world economies rarely develop without strong government participation. I reject the false doctrine that “government has no business in business.” Why then does government control our natural resources and taxation?
I am a believer in Keynesian economics, which emphasises state intervention. Abia’s leather and garment clusters should become export brands. The technological ingenuity of our people must be harnessed. Agriculture in Isiala Ngwa, Ohafia, and Bende must be modernised. Moribund state assets must be revived. The full potential of Abians must be unlocked.
What is your take on the political culture in Abia today?
Our politics is too transactional and personality-driven. Why divide the state into “New Abia” and “Old Abia”? Such acronyms breed acrimony. Governance must serve everyone — the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Christ is worshipped today because He performed miracles and converted sinners, including Saul and the woman of sin. Leadership must unify, not divide. Otherwise, tomorrow another governor may invent “Boys’ Abia” versus “Girls’ Abia.”
What we need are long-term development rolling plans — 20, 30, even 50 years, not petty slogans. Leadership is a service contract, not a personal inheritance. The youth are restless; if we don’t reform, they will rewrite the rules themselves.
As someone who has engaged in politics and governance advocacy, what guiding principle drives your vision for Nigeria and Abia?
I am driven by the belief that governance must rest on a trustworthy foundation — a people’s constitution, structural and electoral reforms, a two-party ideological system, regional autonomy, and a lean centre capable of abolishing hunger, poverty, corruption, nepotism, and bad governance.
That is the Changeabia doctrine: the people’s resources must serve the people. If a policy doesn’t improve citizens’ welfare, it is not worth pursuing. If we build flyovers and roads that do not lead to farms, industries, or jobs, while citizens go to bed hungry, we have built nothing. Believe me — it is doable.
Finally, with the challenges Nigeria faces, are you optimistic about the country’s future?
I am a realist, not a blind optimist. Nigeria’s problems are grave, but nations have reinvented themselves before. My optimism rests on the resilience of Nigerians — we are resourceful, innovative, and capable. What we need are leaders whose vision and courage match the energy of their people.
April, the month of Easter and of earthly regeneration following the recession of the harmattan in Tropical Africa and the Arctic entombment of living humanity elsewhere else, is turning out to be a very cruel month indeed. Something very nasty is happening out there. Not since the events preceding the Second World War has the world seen such massive discombobulating. To be sure, a lot of this seismic unease is coming from an America that is threatening to unravel at the seams. At the moment, America resembles a giant reel that is unspooling in a dramatic and chaotic manner, spreading global fear and discomfiture.
Whenever the world’s leading nation is ill at ease, the rest of the globe must feel the pangs and the pains. The cosmic carnage in Gaza, the apocalyptic meltdown of Sudan with the RUF savages sacking and brutalizing even UN-ordained camps leading to a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic magnitude and the slow-motion disintegration of South Sudan, are all major indications of an America so wracked and consumed by its internal demons that it is incapable of lifting a finger for a world order inaugurated by its own visionary forebears. This is not to talk about the Trumpian tariff war which has sent the world into an economic tailspin.
In some quarters, it feels as if the world is coming to an end. But in reality, it is the world at the end of a particular historic epoch. No one is sure of what will replace the current global order. Global hegemonies, like a national hegemonic order, are not replaced or reconstituted overnight. While we are still at it and without a superintending master-nation, it is imperative for every nation, if it is not to disappear without trace in the tsunami, to reexamine its constitutive principles and fundamental raison d’etre with a view to visionary self-assertion in the coming collision of national altars. A livid China that many had thought was afraid of confrontation and direct collision with America has just told off the Yankee hegemons that five thousand years of continuous existence and civilization cannot be wished away just like that. The wily and inscrutable masters of oriental gobbledygook know just how many aces they hold up their sleeves and because of their cultural nous which they refused to surrender to Western imperialism, they are not about to give the game away.
As they say, when you do not have the handle of the sword, you cannot be asking about how your father came to grief. Economically and culturally, if not yet militarily, China appears to have the handle of the sword, and it is going to use it to hurt America where it matters most. For the first time in its history, its soaring and ever expanding middle class is about to surpass the American middle class which is far from being organic and cohesive. The Chinese middle class will be lining up solidly and massively behind a national institution and the idiosyncratic ideology that has delivered them from the clutches of poverty and biblical immiseration whereas the Trumpian ascendancy in America is a reflection of just how fractured and divided down the line the country has become.
As a wounded America, economically and politically split to its foundation, trapped in the threnody of the Trumpian obsession of making America great again, turns on other nations to offload its angst and frustration, it is the politically brittle and economically fragile nations of sub-Saharan that will bear most of the brunt. Nigeria has already announced that the tariff war and collapsing oil prices are likely to affect its budget plans and projection. This is like carrying a box of matches to a person soaked in gasoline. Unresolved political tensions have already cost volatile and combustible African nations such as Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso considerable economic traction.
The American fiasco is a killer punch administered on an already disoriented opponent. First seek yee the political kingdom and every other thing will follow. We have warned on several occasions in this column that unless the seething multi-ethnic colonial conundrums of Tropical Africa get their political structure and internal configuration right, all economic reforms will come to naught. These things require unusual political will and the courage to dare and it cannot be done by piecemeal cherry picking but by holistic reconfiguration.
Surely and as the Arabian proverb has it, to flee your fate is to rush to find it. Nigeria represents a classic case of economic aspirations without political inspiration which is akin to dreaming in a vacuum or void. Despite the advent of federally inspired bureaucratic reforms, despite the outstanding performance of states such as Lagos, Ekiti, Enugu, Abia, Bornu and Oyo, the politically repressed will always return to haunt us and to impede our path to economic progress and self-sufficiency. This is why in recent weeks significant sections of the nation across the north-south divide have witnessed a resurgence of ethnic violence with several communities foaming in blood after what appeared like a brief remission. The killing plateau of Jos is back in the news with pogrom in Bokkos, Zikke, Kwali District of Bassa and other communities. So are the usual flashpoints of Benue, Adamawa, Zamfara, Bornu, the Abuja perimeter, southern Edo , Oyo, Sokoto, Niger State, Niger Delta and the murderous eastern corridor stretching from Ihube in old Okigwe Division through Isuochi and on to the remote and redoubtable Igbo heartland.
The sensitive issue should now be broached. Perceptive observers should have noticed a nexus between the dramatic resurgence of ethnic violence particularly in the north and middle belt and the escalation of political hostilities against the current administration given the fact that it is not bending hard and fast enough to the hegemonic will of the master-puppeteers of Nigeria politics. Some have vowed that the helmsman is going to be a one-term president (OTP) as a result of his perceived infractions. And we are not even at the proverbial mid-term benchmark. As a result of the dynamics of its ascendancy, the Tinubu administration has faced considerable bitterness and hostility in some quarters. This has made it to expend considerable creative energies responding to wounding and damaging criticism rather than advancing boldly in the theatre of economic and political reform. In some instances the administration has also played into the hands of its enemies by the wide latitude it has given its interpretation of corruption and some of its controversial preferment.
But in a supposedly civilized and modern democratic nation, must we resort to mindless slaughter of ourselves to advance a political cause or just to prove the point that we can destabilize the nation at will? With this murderous veto and voting as an ethnic census looming in the background, those who believe that wholesale restructuring with immediate effect is the answer and panacea to our political difficulties may be missing the point. You cannot restructure a nation without elite consensus. The American Federalist papers went through tomes of ruminations at the summit of human intellect just to get it right. To restructure a nation requires a restructuring mindset. Like democracy itself, resetting and reconfiguring a nation requires considerable national discipline and a pan-national buy-in. Let us confront ourselves with the stark truth. Unless it is by colonial or military veto, you cannot proceed to peaceful restructuring in a fractious multi-ethnic nation brimming with people with a countervailing mindset powered by hegemonic hubris. This should not be restricted to any particular region or people. Just as there is political and religious hubris in Nigeria, there is also economic and cultural hubris.
The history of restructuring in post-independence Nigeria tells a grim story full of apocalyptic portents. So far only once have civilians been able to tinker with the structure of the country. That was in the First Republic and the exercise was shot through with vendetta and political malice. In 1967, Gowon only managed to impose a twelve-state structure on a weary country disoriented by bloodletting and with civil war fast approaching. In an early February 1976 broadcast to announce a further restructuring of the nation into a nineteen-state arrangement, General Mohammed warned darkly that no jubilation or protest on account of new state creation would be tolerated. It was his last broadcast. Barely a week after he was assassinated in broad day light. The attempts during the Second Republic to restructure the country were so unwieldy and impracticable that they never left the bulky pockets of their progenitors before the military struck.
Two other significant attempts to scrutinize the structure of the nation by civilian regimes ended in ruinous consequences for the nation and political self-ruination for the main actors. In the case of General Olusegun Obasanjo (1999/2007), it was obvious that he was more interested in self-perpetuation in office rather than a reconfiguring of the country to enable it operate at maximum strength and efficiency. As soon as the innocuous clause of tenure extension which was cleverly hidden away in a mountain of proliferating sub-clauses was summarily expunged by an alert senate, the remaining over two hundred productive suggestions about improving the lot of the country were frantically pushed aside. The Owu-born warlord became so distressed and inconsolable that he was to spend the remaining part of his tenure perpetrating monumental heists against democracy and the nation in maniacal vengeance. As for Goodluck Jonathan, seized by opportunistic miscalculations, he dithered and dilly-dallied about the recommendations of his own inaugurated conference until he was overwhelmed by superior forces.
The Tinubu administration is in even more precarious circumstances. It is unfortunate that it is at this point when the nation requires a government backed by strong national endorsement that cracks and fissures are appearing everywhere. The ruling party has not been able to improve on its original ratings. Lacking in ideological solidity or political consanguinity, it is held together by a network of patronage and clientelism with its components parts acting with such independence that would have been unthinkable in a cohering and organic party. Betrayed internally, buffeted on all sides by unrelenting hostilities and preyed upon by economic woes, it is hard to see the Tinubu administration commit to a programme of wholesale restructuring of the nation except as a terminal joker. Yet as the nation bleeds profusely from its massive injuries and as international woes undermine Tinubu’s economic gamesmanship, there are many who have come to the conclusion that Nigeria’s legendary run of luck is about to face a most severe test.
While many commentators believe that state failure may be a prelude to disintegration, opinion is divided on the categorisation of Nigeria as a failed or failing state.
Some scholars, who believe that the problems confronting the country have been exaggerated, explained that, Nigeria is not yet a failed state; it is a fragile state. “Nigeria faces a crisis of nation-building, which it must resolve, with the government, acting as its symbol of unity, and the people should be ready to be mobilised on agreed terms,” said Ayodele, who believes the country has manifested the trairs of a ‘soft state.’
In a failed state, government is unable to perform basic functions of governance such as ensuring security, maintaining law and order and providing basic services to citizens. However, Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist, who propounded the theory of ‘soft state,’ posited that such nation-states have weak governance structures and they are retarded by lack of discipline in public administration and law enforcement.
Put succinctly, they are characterised by the non-implementation of laws, ineffective or poor law enforcement, corruption, exploitation of public positions by officials for personal gains, lack of formality in public life, illegal practices in government, and social resistance to reforms due to cultural, political and economic inertia.
In addition, there is chronic and sustained human flight, typically referred to as brain drain due to shrinking opportunities for able and competent young segment of the society while there is intense struggle among the factionalised elite along tribal or regional lines.
Echoing Myrdal, the Swedish economist, Ayodele said:”Soft states often struggle to implement developmental projects or institutional reforms. They are not necessarily failed states, but they face challenges in becoming strong and functional states.”
Also, a political scientist, Prof. Eghosa Osaghae, does not believe that Nigeria is a failed state. He alluded to state fragility, saying that state fragility expresses a tendency towards state failure, if cogent actions are not taken. However, he stressed that this condition can still be mitigated by stakeholders, if they find a common ground for building a nation-state. In his opinion, state failure and disintegration can be averted.
Osaghae acknowledged that the Nigerian federation has been facing the most challenging test of survival.
It is an understatement. Ethnic militant groups have threatened its existence. In the North, the Boko Haram sect has been on the prowl, with its members demanding a Muslim state. Why they are on rampage is now known. In the Middlebelt, the Ombatse Group was unleashing terror. Kidnapping for ransom has persisted. In the Southeast and Southsouth, militants and kidnappers have made life unbearable for people.
In the Southeast in particular, non-state actors indulge in disrupting economic activities on Mondays, killing and maiming. In the Southwest, there is armed robbery, ritual killing and pockets of kidnapping are on the increase. The regional security outfit, Amotekun, has been assisting the police in arresting the trend.
The Federal Government has tried to confront these challenges by mobilising the Armed Forces to tackle insecurity. Apart from battling terrorism perpetrated by Boko Haram, it is also battling a new group, Lakurawa, which constitutes a new threat to security in the North. In a nutshell,Insecurity is disrupting farming, transport, markets and destroying infrastructure, the economy,
Diversity and disunity:
Nigeria has remained a colonial legacy. It has not transformed from a nation-state to a nation. Yet, nations, which are united by common language, tradition, culture and history, have greater chances of integration and survival than nation-states made up of competing ethnic groups in a lopsided federation.
From an amalgam of two incompatible protectorates, the fragile edifice transformed into a country of three diverse regions. Later, it metamorphosed into four antagonistic regions. Today, the federation of 36 states emphasises, not uniformity but division, which consistently threatens its foundation.
Despite its oil, other natural deposits and vast human talents, the fledgling nation-state has not yet become an economic miracle. For over 25 years, Nigeria, the acclaimed sixth largest producer of crude oil did not have a functional refinery, until two months ago when the Port-Harcourt plant, like a phoenix, rose from the ashes.
A former university don, Prof. Itsey Sagay (SAN), said its democratic institutions are weak and undependable. “Nigeria is not building institution and a system that can sustain democracy,” he added.
The implication is that dividends of democracy are not fully guaranteed. The polity is not erected on a strong political culture. Security of life and property is a mirage. The state, in the view of the late statesman, Dr. Pius Okigbo, has become the greatest corrupter of the society. Unemployment, especially among graduates, is increasing. Many elected functionaries are battling with legitimate crisis because they emerged through a colossal assault on the ballot box. The standard of living is declining on daily basis.
It is a sad commentary that on assuming the reins,President Bola Tinubu, whose administration inherited the mounting challenges, has to be rebuilding critical sectors, almost from the scratch.
Defective federalism:
Many have attributed the long journey to a difficult future to the mistake of 1914. The foundational error by the first colonial governor, Lord Fredrick Lugard, who forcefully lumped the different tribes together without mutual agreement, may have become Nigeria’s albatross.
From the forceful union, through the 46 years of colonial tremor, to a failed start at self rule at independence, the re-colonisation of the free country by its ambitious and restless soldiers and the trial and error process of installing a durable democracy, the involuntary union was boxed into multiple crises of nationhood, development and survival.
The signs were ominous from the onset. The over 450 tribes have been locked in acrimonious relationship as they competed for state power and resources. Even, among the nationalists fighting for self-rule, there were clevages, and the cause of tribes were projected than the anticipated independent nation.
The development of national outlook has proved abortive, with ethnicity and religion shaping the responses to the socio-political milieu. The Federal Government at any dispensation has always maintained an ethnic focus, with the zones not producing the President nursing a feeling of marginalisation, exclusion, alienation and exploitation. To the consternation of many political observers, the tension between theoretical federalism and regional selfishness has been sustained, making the country a victim of ethnic configuration and confrontation.
At independence, the founding fathers adopted federalism. But the principle was later basterdised by the military, who became the country’s indigenous colonisers.
“Owing to the successive administrations’ aversion for true federalism, equity and good governance, the country is also permanently assailed by a curious crises,” said Dr. Ibukun Falayi, a lecturer at the Ayo Babalola University, Ikeji-Arakeji. Lamenting the distribution crisis, he added: “The crisis is triggered by a dubious formula for sharing of the somehow real and somehow elusive national cake.”
Paradoxically, Nigeria’s strength is also its main weakness. It is a large heterogeneous society blessed with diverse human assets. Even, the British coveted its vast natural endowments. In fact, at independence, some British statesmen thought that, by mid seventies, the country would have become a medium-ranking world power. But, as pointed out by Falayi, a Fellow of the Instituteof Chartered Accountantsof Nigeria (ICAN), the country’s vastness is inversely proportional to its propensity for politics of affection, equity, cooperation and brotherhood.
Frictions and tensions among the ethnic groups are recurrent phenomenon, right from the pre-colonial days. In this Fourth Republic, ethnicity and religion have also become a tool exploited by politicians in the struggle for power.
The apathy towards the cultivation of national outlook has inadvertently given way to a continued lukewarm attitude towards nation-building by the frustrated sub-national units whose emotions are stirred by the clandestine tribal organisations coordinating the tribes in the hot race for relevance within the polity.
Putting this into perspective, Falayi said: “Nigeria today faces a test, a challenge of continuity and survival. There is a federation on paper, but the federating units are detached and not united by a common destiny.
“Major tribes dominating the six geo-political zones have grudges. They are apparently at each other’s heels; aggrieved and bitter; striving to build on the legacy of ethnicity erected by the founding fathers of Nigeria who promoted tribalism, mistrust and suspicion.”
As ethnic tensions degenerate into ethno-religious crises, which have undermined national unity, cohesion and security, leaders, who adorn primordial lenses, are eager to politicise the core issues germane to the solution.
Also, the Presidency is not a unifying factor. In the opinion of Ayodele, “it is perceived as a rotational commodity,” adding that any region that does not produce the President at a time cannot have confidence in the power base. “Nigerians see themselves, first as indigenes of their tribes, sub-tribes and ethnic nations. There is no sense of attachment and belonging outside your region of origin. A President is perceived as the Northern President, Southwest President and Southsouth President. There is loyalty to the regions, and not the centre.”
The political scientist also pointed out that anger and disillusionment ooze from the feeling of domination; real or imagined; neglect and inequality. “Perhaps, no ethnic group has been insulated from the pervading fear of marginalisation, a singular development that has fueled unrestrained calls for confederation, restructuring of the much criticised lopsided federalism and outright secession,” he added.
In the past, many stakeholders argued that Nigeria could overcome ethnic tensions by evolving a virile federation through the breaking the country into smaller units for easy administration. State creation was designed to dismantle the tribal bonds and chains. However, the exercise was conducted by partial, partisan and distant military rulers, who imposed a unitary system, which ironically alienated the newly created states and systematically encouraged further regression to tribal enclaves. In fact, the civilian regimes inherited the unitary posture, which has hindered the growth of cooperative federalism. The elite who spearheaded the agitation for state creation however, achieved thd objective of more access to state resources through state creation.
State creation has also bred division and suspicion in many states. In some states like Kwara, Kogi, Plateau, Benue and Adamawa, different tribes with different identities were lumped together. An unresolved problem of state creation is the indigenes/settlers rifts that have led to bloodshed.
Also, the states and local governments are not also evenly distributed between the North and the South by the military. For example, while Lagos, despite its huge population, has 20 local governments,old Kano state, made up of Kano and Jigawa, has 71 local governments.
The national question:
Sixty four years after independence, the national question has remained unsolved. Also,critical reforms by the Tinubu administration aimed at restoring devolution and decentralisation are being resisted. There is tension between people bent on sustaining the unitary status quo and thise pressing for structural reforms and true federalism. Nigerians are more divided more along ethnic and religious lines than any time in its history.
“Some radical groups in the south now believe that the only solution is for Nigeria to split, with each major ethnic region becoming a country of its own,” said Adaobi Nwaubani, a public commentator, who added:”Some politicians and pundits prefer “restructuring” with each region having more autonomy, which would keep Nigeria united but significantly reduce power at the centre.
Whatever resolution Nigeria eventually takes as it enters its 70th decade of independence, one thing is certain: the country’s future depends on how successfully coming governments can maintain unity in diversity.”
The unresolved national question revolves around the core crises of development, including identity, legitimacy, participation, and distribution crises.
The burning issues arising from these unresolved challenges include citizenship and indigeneship, the secularity of the state, state and community policing, the revenue allocation, the devolution of power, the rotation or zoning of presidential power, and corruption. Although former Presidents Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan set up National Conferences to resolve these issues, their reports did not see the light of the day. Thus, efforts at resolving the national question through constitution amendment have failed.
In the past, political diversity management techniques were adopted by the military governments. But these measures – federal character, quota system and catchment areas -, whicg were never erected on the pillars of merit and excellence, compunded the problems of inefficiency across the sectors.
As noted by Nwuabani, “rivalry between ethnic groups often leads people to lift as many of their kinsmen as they can once they find themselves in a position to do so.”
The flawed Constitution:
The consensus opinion among historians, political scientists, civil society groups, and legal experts, is that Nigeria operates a flawed constitution.
Dismissing the 1999 Constitution as a ruse, the legal luminary, the late Chief Rotimi Williams said the document, which is actually a military decree, lied against itself, when it opened with the preface: “We the people.” Another lawyer, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN), described it as a rebellion to true federalism. Citing two defects of the constitution, he said it is wrong for the Federal Government to have input into the creation of local government, adding that it is also wrong for the governors, who are the chief security officers in their states, to rely on the Abuja-based Inspector-General of Police for maintenance of law and order.
Since the police is beyond reach, governors have been giving support to vigilante groups, ethnic militia and other para-military forces. Irked by this development, a lawyer, Kola Awodein (SAN), said these “emergency and quack security men”, who lack proper training and structure, are dangerous. But, what has also dented the image of the police is its inability to resolve high profile murders. When eminent Nigerians, including former Justice Minister Chief Ajibola Ige, Alfred rewane, Harry Marshall, Abiye Sekibo, Kunle Arojo, Funso Williams, Iyalode Bisoye Tejuoso, and Ayo Daramola were killed, foreign investors started to doubt the prospects of a safe atmosphere for business.
Ethno-religious crises have aggravated the security challenge. So far, the state of emergency in the troubled states have not stopped the killings. Non-indigenes have left for their regions of origin, having lost relations and property. This has generated bad blood. Even, wealthy indigenes cannot visit home because of the fear of kidnapping. Not all the Chibok girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram sect have been rescued by soldiers, who in the past fought terror with obsolete equipment. Ayodele expressed worry about the “demobilised army,”saying that a state or country is incomplete without a competent military base. “One of the conditions for nationhood is the presence of a standing army ready to protect the territorial integrity of Nigeria. Our soldiers are not equipped to fight internal forces. It is doubtful, if they can defend the country against foreign aggression. The litmus test is the Boko Haram insurgency. It is not their fault. It is the fault of past governments that refused to fund the military adequately, despite the heavy defence budgets,” he said.
Ayodele also pointed out that “when some sects “annex” part of the component units that make up a federation and hoist a strange flag, sovereignty is threatened and the country becomes fragile and susceptible to failure.” However, he said for a country to break up, it would have been subjected to socio-economic and political stress for a long time. “It would have gone through upheavals and disintegration can only come as a last resort. I don’t think Nigeria has come to that stage,” he stressed.
Military: a unitary legacy
Despite its delicate plurality and the ethnic bitterness of its regional leaders, Nigeria gave birth to a promising First Republic anchored on true federalism, regional autonomy and fair revenue sharing, based on the principles of derivation, need and national interest. The only dark side of that epoch was the lack of national outlook and the promotion of ethnic interests above the national interest. But, the politics of the independence years reflected the image of Nigeria as an amalgam of incompatible, diverse and antagonistic social formations. The leaders recognised the need to build a big, economically viable, politically strong and stable country. The Premier of Eastern region, Dr. Nnamidi Azikiwe, told his Northern counterpart, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello: “Let us burry our differences”. Bello replied: “No, let us understand our differences”. The Premier of Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had said: “Nigeria is a geographical expression”. By this, Awo implied that the terms for peaceful co-existence must be agreed upon by the component units.
The coup of 1966 terminated the delicate marriage and compounded Nigeria’s woes. The military, which posed as “modernisers” and “agents of change”rejected the federal principle and foisted a unitary system. According to analysts, the army mirrored the polity, its ethnic bias and cravings for power in regional interest. Thus, under the military regime, the country nearly disintegrated when it was plunged into a three year civil war. In post-war period, the North, more or less, consolidated its control of the federal power, until 1999, when the regions renegotiated for power rotation.
Under the military, economic management was a difficult task. Under the punctured civilian regime of the Second Republic and relatively stable Fourth Republic, a huge gap has existed between expectation and reality. Nigeria has not made a speedy progress, unlike the Asian countries, which were on the same pedestal with Nigeria, over six decades ago.
The manufacturing sector is gone. Churches and residential buildings have sprouted up from the industrial estates. The army of unemployed youths is now a liability instead of asset. Yet, profligacy, theft and graft are peculiar to the privileged few in government. Disturbed by the trend, an Afenifere chieftain, Hon. Wale Oshun, said that “Nigeria is at crossroads,” adding:”President Bola Tinubu inherited a mess. He has much work to do. The first step is restructuring.”
Crisis of development:
Closely related is the integration crisis. This relates to forging cohesion among the tribal units, which differ on sensitive national issues. But, far more challenging is the legitimacy crisis, which is triggered by the abuse of the ballot box and lack of performance by the government.
A peaceful, free and fair presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola was criminally annulled, drawing the country to an edge. But, in this dispensation, democracy has been mocked by the assault on the ballot box. It is a tragedy, said Ayodele, that many unelected governors and parliamentarians have invaded the corridor of power, thereby creating a disconnect between the government and the governed. He pointed out that the extent of the legitimacy crisis manifested in the confession by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua that the election that brought him to power was severely flawed.
How has the country resolved the distribution crisis, in a mono-product economy where oil is the main source of income? There are many questions and few answers: should the national cake be shared among the component units, who are producers and non-producers of oil? Which formula for distribution will foster equity, fairness and justice, and minimise the complaints of the “marginalised” and the “minority?” Is resource control plausible and practicable? Are the regions or states prepared for the challenge of true federalism or guided resource control? Until recently, why was diversification ignored? If there is oil theft or disruption of mining activities in the Southsouth, will Nigeria will not be held to ransom?
The over-dependence on oil has implications. There is the feeling that Nigeria is being fed by one region. The zone is devastated by exploration and mining activities. Former Lagos State Governor Lateef Jakande said: “It is ironic that the region has suffered monumental regret and deprivation in the past.” This is injustice, he added. The offer of amnesty to the restless Niger Delta youths and the setting up of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) have doused the tension.
For long, citizens have been denied of comfortable living. In the last 20 years, lack of electricity has crippled business operations, especially by artisans. The cost of doing business has gone up because people have shifted to generators as the alternative source of power. Efforts to fix the electricity has not succeeded.
Generally, government has to fight the infrastructure battle with more vigour. There should be more investment in roads, and education and health should not be underfunded.
A group, Transparency International, has listed Nigeria among the most corrupt countries in the world. Activist-priest Dr. Mathew Kukah, the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, blamed the elite for the cankerworm. “Greed will always stand on the way of national interest”, he said. In fact, corruption is the greatest problem. Even, pensions are stolen by government officials.
In an obvious reference to Nigeria, former United States President Barack Obama said: “No country is going to create wealth, if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or the police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or head of the port authorities is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy; that is tyranny and now is the time to end it”.
The anti-graft bodies are in dilemma. The Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (ICPC) have their limitations. While it is relatively easier to fight corruption outside government, it is difficult to curb corruption in the corridor of power. In the early nineties, foremost economist Dr. Pius Okigbo cried out that “the government has become the greatest corrupter of the society.” In the past, critics alleged that the anti-graft bodies were used by government to intimidate and witch-hunt perceived foes. It takes months to prosecute a person who stole a goat or tubers of yam; it takes an average of 12 years to prosecute a former governor for graft or sleaze.
Surviving threats of disintegration
The myriad of problems notwithstanding, Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, has shown a curious capacity for resilience and survival . Although the country has been threatened by the secessionist agenda four times in its chequered history, it has triumphed.
The first time was in 1953, when Northern delegates to the pre-independence Constitutional Conference in Lagos and members of the Northern Regional House of Assembly asked for secession from the rest of the country. The agenda was borne out of frustration and disillusionment. That was when the legislators from the North opposed the Action Group (AG) l’s called for “independence now.” In their view, the North was not ripe for independence because of the obvious educational and economic gap between it and the seemingly more prosperous South, especially the educationally advantaged West. The delegates were booed and jeered at in Lagos as they headed for the railway terminal in Iddo, Ebute- Meta, Lagos to board the train, after rejecting the independence motion. The shouted “arabah,” which meant seccession.
But, as recalled by a professor of history, Akinjide Osuntokun, “British officials were able to persuade the Northerners that it would be economic suicide to consider such a move.” Therefore, the Northern Nigeria Congress (NPC)-dominated Northern House passed an eight-point resolution, which manifested the compromise between “outright secession” and “loose federation.” Their resolutions expressed their readiness for a federal structure, which agreed with the clamour power federalism by the defunct Action Group (AG).
The second threat to the continued existence of Nigeria was the civil war, which was foisted on the country by the competition for power and clash of egos among members of the ruling military class. Rejecting the elevation of the Army Chief of Staff, Col. Yakubu Gowon, to the military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief, following Major-General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi’s assassination by soldiers of Northern origin at Ibadan, the military governor of the Eastern Region, Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, declared the ill-fated Republic of Biafra. At the reconciliation meeting in Aburi, Ghana, brokered by Gen. Ankrah, Gowon tactlessly accede to Ojukwu’s clever demand for balkanisation. On returning home, Ojukwu and his men retorted: “On Aburi we stand.” The Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Federal Commissioner for Finance, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, said, if the East was allowed to secede, the West would have been motivated to follow suit. For three years, Nigeria was up in arms against itself, until the secessionists surrendered on the battle front.
The third attempt at disintegration also came during the military rule. A coup plotter, Major Gideon Okar, during a failed coup, announced that eight states have ceased to be part of the federation. He said they should come and negotiate with the new government, which never came into existence. Lamentably, the military President, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who survived the coup, later annulled the most transparent and credible presidential election. It was an unprecedented milestone that adversely affected the unity of Nigeria. That was the fourth threat to nationhood.
Since the Third Republic, it was evident that the struggle for presidential power was a big issue. The resort to zoning or rotation appear to be the way out.
During the military rule, a foreign body warned that aroused the country stood the risk of a break-up in 2015. The warning was dismissed with a wave of the hand. Also, in 2009, the former American Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton warned that Nigeria may become a failed state because of soaring corruption. That period of turbulence was characterised by the persistent struggle for self-determination by ethnic organisations, which thought that loyalty to a central government that cannot defend the interests of component units was illusory.
“The most immediate source of disconnect between Nigeria’s wealth and its poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state and local levels. Lack of transparency and accountability has eroded the legitimacy of government and contributed to the rise of groups protesting the injustice and challenging the authorities of the state,”Mrs. Cliton said.
Another United States organisation, the ‘Fund for Peace,’ evenlisted Nigeria among the failed states. In the list are war-torn Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Chad, Afghanistan, Congo, Ivory Coast and Haiti. For almost two decade, peace has eluded these countrie and their citizens were in disarray. The growing number of refugees there was a major concern to the United Nations and some regional organisations.
In 1994, a former university don, Prof. Adebayo Williams, warned that Nigerian federalism had become a compelling and comprehensive failure. He alluded to frightening memoranda and manuals for disintegration flying all over the place. “What we are witnessing is a man-made disaster of epic proportions. The Nigerian State has, so far, become a compelling and comprehensive failure,” he said, adding that the consequence may be the price for the failure of leadership. At that time, the country was facing serious economic challenges and the transition programme was on the reverse.
Like Obasanjo, former Military Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, raised a red flag in 2021, raised a red flag, warning that the country could disintegrate amid the convulsions; the unprecedented level of insecurity, spectacular acts of criminality, bitter feuding among ethnic nationalities, a dysfunctional national government, mass poverty and joblessness, restive youth and increasingly voiced loss of confidence in the union by significant segments.
Abubakar, who heads the National Peace Committee, feared that Nigeria could plunge into state failure, saying: “Tension has been growing and embers of disunity, anarchy and disintegration are spreading fast and if care is not taken, this might lead us to a point of no return.”
Also, a retired soldier, Major General Henry Ayoola, raised an alarm, saying: “Nigeria is in a critical state facing real, present and existential threats to her peace, union and progress. Everywhere across the country, there are signs of degeneration, collapse and loss of confidence.” Other analysts have also warned that the possibility of a second civil war, once thought to be far-fetched, has become altogether real.
So far, Nigeria has survived the predictions.
If Nigeria disintegrates, Africa, particularly West Africa, is likely to be in big trouble. “One in every Africa is a Nigerian. How will neigbouring countries in West Africa cope with refugees from Nigeria?” asked Ayodele. “A calamity of monumental proportion may befell Africa,” he added.
To many stakeholders, disintegration is not the answer. The solution, according to them is the restoration of true federalism, with its elements of regionalism, state police, devolution of power and restructuring, which may save the country from doom.
That was why the three dominant regional mouthpieces – Afenifere, pan Yoruba socio-political group, Arewa Consultative Forum and Ohanaeze Ndigbo, have persisted in their calls for a Sovereign National Conference “to discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence.” instructively, the reports of the 2004 and 2014 national conferences were thrown into the dustbin. They therefore, paled into decoys and jamboree, and another avenue, not only for airing regional grievances, but also for fuelling pre-existing bitterness among competing political leaders, who debated issues in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion.
Besides, effective or good governance should provide answers to the multiple challenges of
corruption in national life, and in the judiciary, free and fair elections, national security, the rejuvenation of the the economy, and national unity.
It is possible that the zoning debacle would be resolved as the polity continues to be stable. The pattern of succession, from Jonathan to Muhammadu Buhari, and to Tinubu affirms the conventional endorsement of rotation better the North and South.
Averting state failure in Nigeria
The capacity of the Federal Government to offer a creative leadership required in the period of grave economic crisis should not be in doubt.
Much is expected of President Tinubu as he steers Nigeria from fragility. He should promote the culture of dialogue, listen and not ignore the complaints and warnings. The President is paying much attention to security as the 2025 budget has shown. He should prevent cross-border invasion and infiltration, prevent internal attack on the social structure, and promote dispute settlement without resorting to arms.
Issuse that need attention include ethnic and religious conflicts, herder/farmer clashes, massive internal displacement, improper ventilation of grievances by aggrieved groups, endemic corruption in high places, economic decline and inequality, gross rights abuse, soaring youth unemployment, electoral reforms, improved access to justice, military and police action driven by intelligence and technology, state police, decentralisation of resource control, and true federalism.
Further clarifications, elaborations and amplifications
Last week’s piece brought a gale of reactions from alert readers which has necessitated some immediate clarifications, elaborations and amplifications on the vexed issue of federalism in postcolonial Africa, particularly in Nigeria. All federating nations, to the extent that they seek a more equitable and egalitarian society, are permanent works in progress. Sometimes the end-products of these federalist experimentations are so dissimilar that some nations stand as a permanent rebuke to the whole notion of federalism.
There is no point in comparing the functioning federalism in America despite all its glaring defects and in Canada, Australia and the United Arab Emirate with its grotesque travesties in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Cambodia and several African countries. There are also times when a federating experiment goes awry, allowing an authoritarian despot to steal in through the backdoor.
Nigerians must thank God for small mercies that the structural disequilibrium which has induced the virtual collapse and disappearance of the state in Sudan, its complete emasculation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, its dismemberment in Somalia, its bizarre state bifurcation in Libya and its forlorn disorientation in South Sudan even after Caesarean operation, has largely eluded the heaving and seething West African behemoth. Nigeria seems to owe its staying power more to some mysterious element of luck rather than to the power and paradox of structural disaggregation. But a loosely cobbled together conglomeration cannot stay like that forever. Some conscious efforts would have to be made to keep it together.
Ever since the amalgamation of the two protectorates, no issue has exercised the mind of indigenes and colonial rulers more than the kind of structure that would accommodate the diverse nationalities brought together by imperialist fiat and guarantee peace and prosperity among the various constituents who were in different stages of civilization when they were interdicted under a colonial rubric which simply collapsed all of them under one heading. The reactions to last week’s piece evoked the plight of colonized people in its peculiar and paradoxical poignancy.
The reaction to the failure of federalism in the country has led many to a withdrawal from the central place to the outer fringes of their community where they think they can enjoy greater state dividends or exert more direct influence over those who control their destiny. It does not seem to occur to them that by so doing, they may be strengthening the hands of one of the federating units, in this case central authority against all the sub-national units. Yet the central canon of federalism advances that no single federating entity must loom so large in size and strength as to constitute a direct existential threat to other federating units. This was what led to the fall of the First Republic.
But it does seem as if being proud products of lapsed empires, abbreviated kingdoms, defunct fiefdoms and other feudal suzerainties, most Nigerians of a particular age group as well as many other Africans, by instinct or by inclination, hold the state and central authority in such reverence and acclamation which is just a shade short of deity-worshipping. To them it is either order, whatever its inconveniences, or anarchy and chaos. This is why recent revolts and upheavals against state corruption and ethical disorder in many African countries follow a certain demographic pattern which holds interest for the immediate future.
If some proactive state engineering is not put in place as a precautionary measure, then as the efficacy of the ideological potency of the old pre-colonial African state wears off among restive Nigerian youth and their rapidly evolving global consciousness, we are going to witness certain political inclemency which may subsume and then consume the battle for genuine federalism itself.
While this column last week identifies the resentment and bitterness that the failure of federalism has caused in the country, it completely underestimated the power of scapegoating and the symbolic capacity of the popular imagination for collective stigmatization. While the national revulsion against the failure of federalism is palpable, the ruling of the Supreme Court which grants fiscal autonomy to local councils seems to have galvanized and canalized the national ire against the mismanagement of federalism into an uproar against state governments. If this was part of the original objective of the federal authorities, they seem to have succeeded beyond the remit.
A response by an elder statesman captures the problem: “Ariwo Symphony, an intriguing exposition… you moved deftly to the Supreme Court judgment on the allocation of funds to the 774 local government areas. Apparently the provisions of the Constitution did not specifically include local government areas as part of the federating units!
Evidence of disenchantment can be seen in the imposed agreement between the President and all the 36 governors to defer commencement to October 2024. Whatever they do, the direct allocation of funds to Local governments will become a reality in a couple of months from now. The Local Governments are closer to the people and they know and feel their every need. It is our hope that the State Governors will act fully in the spirit of this decision without any attempt at teleguiding”. Very well said sir, but doesn’t that now bring up the vexed issue of party formation, party ideological guidance, leadership recruitment, patronage and preferment, departure from the Lincolnian ideal of promoting national cohesion through judicious search for personal excellence and the homogenization of the post-military political class in Nigeria?
Any fiscal reform of Local Government which fails to address its comorbidities is dead on arrival. You cannot address critical aspects of National Question by mere cherry picking. This thing requires a holistic and totalizing approach in all its dialectical density. Awolowo would be wearing a sardonic smirk in his grave. This morning we bring you an address by the columnist to a gathering of local government officials in Lagos twelve years ago.
Last week in this column, in the article titled “Federalism and the local government autonomy verdict”, it was argued that, due to the natural tendency for the meanings of words to change through broadening or narrowing, as a result of changing contexts, it was problematic to restrict the concept of federalism to a two-tier system of government. Given the continuing federalist controversies, it is necessary to examine the concept further. Alexander Hamilton and K.C. Wheare are two of the authorities often cited by some Nigerians to justify insisting that Nigeria’s three-tier system is an aberrant federalism.
In an article titled “The structure of the government must furnish the proper checks and balances between the different departments” and published in Federalist 51 on 8 February, 1788, Hamilton noted: “In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” Hamilton further noted: “And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.”
Hamilton also posited: “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. … It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” In a 2024 article, UShistory.org puts the idea as follows: “In their attempt to balance order with liberty, the Founders identified several reasons for creating a federalist government: to avoid tyranny, to allow more participation in politics, to use the states as ‘laboratories’ for new ideas and programs.” Moreover, regarding the purpose of federalism, an Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on federalism which was last updated on 8 June, 2024 states: “The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.”
Referring to the 1943/1946 views of K.C. Wheare, who has been described as the “Dean” of modern comparative federalism research, John Kincaid in his September 2021 piece under the broader theme “Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia,” compiled by the Pennsylvania-based Center for the Study of Federalism, stated: “Wheare defined federalism as ‘the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate and independent.’ He argued that federalism requires ‘co-ordinate partners in the governmental process.’ He believed that federalism is not an end in itself but rather a means to good government and that achieving that end requires adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of a federal constitution.”
With respect to Nigeria’s federal constitution, The Punch, in an 11 April, 2022 piece by Leke Baiyewu, titled “Govs should determine how local councils run – Fayemi”, reported that as Chair of the Nigeria Governor’s Forum, Kayode Fayemi, when asked why state governments and governors were stifling local governments, said: “Today in Nigeria, the local government is not a tier of government … Federalism is a two-tier system: you have the Federal Government and you have the state government. … That is what is represented in the Constitution.”
Moreover, Fayemi was reported, by Emmanuel Oladesu, in a story in The Nation titled “NFIU can’t dictate to states, say governors”, on 14 October, 2019, to have said as follows: “There is no law that has been passed in the country on local government autonomy. There have been several attempts, but it has never gotten 24 states Houses of Assembly out of the 36 in the country to make it happen. Nigeria is not a three-tier federation. Talk about Nigeria being a three-tier federation is a distortion.” Contrary to Fayemi’s views, Kunle Lawal, the Executive Director, Electoral College Nigeria (ECN) – “a non-partisan and non-governmental platform” – was reported by Samson Elijah, in a 12 July, 2024 piece titled “Local gov’t autonomy cornerstone for true federalism, dev’t – Lawal”, in Leadership newspaper, to have declared: “Despite being recognized as the third tier of government by the Nigerian Constitution, local governments face significant challenges in managing their financial resources independently.”
But, what exactly does the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria say about the local government system? Section 3(6) states: ”There shall be 768 Local Government Areas in Nigeria as shown in the second column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Constitution and six area councils as shown in Part II of that Schedule.” Section 7(1) declares: “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.” Relatedly, Section 7(4) declares: “The Government of a State shall ensure that every person who is entitled to vote or be voted for at an election to House of Assembly shall have the right to vote or be voted for at an election to a local government council.”
Moreover, Section 7(5) states: “The functions to be conferred by Law upon local government council shall include those set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Constitution.” In addition, Section 8(5) states: “An Act of the National Assembly passed in accordance with this section shall make consequential provisions with respect to the names and headquarters of State or Local government areas as provided in section 3 of this Constitution and in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to this Constitution.” Complementarily, Section 8(6) asserts: “For the purpose of enabling the National Assembly to exercise the powers conferred upon it by subsection (5) of this section, each House of Assembly shall, after the creation of more local government areas pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, make adequate returns to each House of the National Assembly.”
With respect to funding, Section 162(3) declares: “Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.” Section 162(5) also indicates: “The amount standing to the credit of Local Government Councils in the Federation Account shall also be allocated to the State for the benefit of their Local Government Councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.”
Section 162(6) also provides: “Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.” Section 162(7) further states: “Each State shall pay to Local Government Councils in its area of jurisdiction such proportion of its total revenue on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.” Moreover, Section 162(8) provides: “The amount standing to the credit of Local Government Councils of a State shall be distributed among the Local Government Councils of that State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State.”
Some are of the opinion that some pairs of the constitutional provisions on local governments are inconsistent or contradictory. Ironically, the seeming contradiction is what appears to have made Nigeria’s three-tier model of federalism consistent with, for example, the American two-tier model with respect to safeguarding liberty or protecting against tyranny and providing increased opportunities for citizens’ participation in government, through duly organised elections at all of the levels of government. It is the capacity to perform these patent functions of federalism that the Supreme Court judgement of 11 July, 2024 on local government autonomy has enhanced. The judgement therefore deepens Nigeria’s federalism.
Prior to the judgement, the state governments’ tyranny with respect to local government finance and the usurpation of the powers of the citizens to elect leaders of their choice had been widely acknowledged. Local governments’ funds were being sent to them, from the federation account, through the state governments to enhance transparency and accountability. But the state governments did not allow this noble objective to be achieved, because majority of them unconstitutionally withheld and illegally deployed the greater part of the local governments’ funds. Moreover, most of the state governments unconstitutionally dissolved duly-elected local government administrations and replaced them with illegal unelected Caretaker Committees.
Various efforts to reform the oppressive, anti-federalist situations were frustrated by the state governments, using their real and assumed powers, and gloating over the abuse. The saving grace now is the seeming contradictions in the constitution which have created a federalism-enhancing liberating flexibility, which has freed the local governments from the absolute and suffocating control of the state governments.
In a 27 August, 2020 video presentation by Kimana Zulueta-Fülscher on “What is federalism”, the Stockholm-Switzerland-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which is an intergovernmental organisation that supports democracy worldwide, notes: “[F]ederalism is often a choice for large countries like India, the United States, Brazil, Germany, Mexico and Nigeria. … And, since no single country is exactly like another, no federal system is exactly alike either.”
More precisely, Teachoo.com, a New-Delhi-India-based online educational resource centre, last updated on 16 April, 2024, observes: “Federalism means sharing of power among the levels, i.e., central, state, regional and local governments.” It further notes that, in a federal system, “it is not possible for one level of government to unilaterally alter the fundamental rules of the constitution;” and that “courts have the authority to interpret the constitution and the authority of various governmental levels. If disagreements occur between several levels of government as they use their distinct powers, the highest court serves as a mediator. For each level to maintain its financial independence, the sources of revenue are clearly identified.”
An encyclopaedia entry on “Federalism” by Daniel J. Elazar, last edited on 13 September, 2018, and published under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Federalism, rightly cautions: “No single definition of federalism has proved satisfactory to all students, primarily because of the difficulties in relating theoretical formulations to the evidence gathered from observing the actual operation of federal systems.” This liberal perception is invaluable for the accurate rating of Nigeria’s federalism.
The idea of re-introducing the regions into the structure of the Nigerian polity at this point in time is retrogressive, expensive and out-of-tune with the general thinking in a modern Nigeria. It is like dragging us 50 years back from this period (i.e. To the beginning of political administration in Nigeria). If regionalism, now being canvassed by THE PATRIOTS, was tabled before the various Constitutional Conferences in the 1950’s, the idea would have received some favourable consideration, and a lot of changes would have gone into whatever might have been agreed at that time such that the Nigeria of 2000 will definitely not be what it is now nor what THE PATRIOTS are proposing.
THE PATRIOTS’ membership has many varied senior citizens of Nigeria, and also highly learned experienced and resourceful materials this country can boast of any day. They are all eminent Nigerians. We are also privileged to have in THE PATRIOTS men who have been involved in the drafting of our constitutions in the past. There is nothing
I may say about the past that will be strange to them. It is an undisputable fact that Nigeria has not witnessed a stable democratic rule since 1966.
But during this period, the political emancipation gained by the various ethnic groups through the creation of states and local government councils has become not only part of our history, but also part of the everyday life of these people to which they are pathologically attached. If the new constitution is for these same people, then it must be fashioned to recognise the reality on the ground, that is, the local independence enjoyed by all since 1960, which has brought a lot of physical development into areas, hitherto neglected because of their ethnic or tribal chauvinism.
Going by THE PATRIOTS’ proposal, we are to have six (6) regional capitals;
Viz. –
• JOS for North-Central
• MAIDUGURI for Northeast
• KADUNA for Northwest
• ENUGU for Southeast
• PORT-HARCOURT for
South-South
• IBADAN for Southwest
So, – the people of Lagos whose control had always been from Lagos and who only had the other parts of the Colony Province ceded to it to become Lagos State 33 years ago, will now report to a Regional Capital in Ibadan (over 125 kilometres away). – or the Edo/Delta people whose entire life had been with the West and who got ‘Independence’ in 1963 to be where they are today to now report to a Regional Capital in Port Harcourt; – or the ‘Sharia’ Niger, to report to a Regional Capital in Jos of Plateau State; etc.
The same scenario can be repeated for all the 36 States and the 768 local government councils.
If the proposals of THE PATRIOTS are adopted, the following Administrative Set-ups will emerge in the 36 States:
Maybe, the Judiciary will be spared in this highly expensive venture.
The multiplier effect of creating the various new positions in the New Regions as shown above will be such that the cost of keeping the machinery of administration going may not even be available, not to talk of any state or region having fund left for capital projects. We must not deceive ourselves: no new Regions or any existing state will want to operate without having in place a minimum of the positions listed above.
All these personnel who are only at the apex of government administration will need the basic administrative infrastructure (vehicles, office and residential accommodation, furniture, equipment, etc.) to be able to function. N30, 000.00 minimum wage for the workers is today a problem for some States in the Federation!
If only for the cost implication, Regionalism should be jettisoned. It is unprogressive, very expensive and not in consonance with the state of political, economic and social development of the Nigerian people. I plead with The Patriots to have a second look at the proposal again.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We must go the whole hog.
• Note: It is necessary to point out that the substitution of “Police Service Commission” for “Nigeria Police Council” in The Patriots’ new Section 216(E) is a misnomer: The appropriate body to delegate function in respect of ‘powers’ is the Police Council not Police Service Commission.
1. Early History of Local Government System in Nigeria Between 1937 and 1952 the Northern and Southern Nigeria operated what was known as Native Authority (NA) which has its own courts and police to administer at the grassroots level. While this system changed in the Western and Eastern parts of Nigeria in the early 50s, it continued in the Northern part until after independence.
A summary of the practice in the four regions then was as follows:
1.1 The Lagos, Midwestern and Western States.
There was a close similarity between the Local Government arrangements in the Lagos, Midwestern and Western States as the areas of these States except the city of Lagos were all formerly part of the Western Region of Nigeria. The common Local Government law provided for a three-tiered structure comprising Divisional, District and Local Councils although, in practice, only a one-tier system was found in most parts of these States and, in other areas, there were never more than two-tiers of Local Government.
Lagos City Council was in a special category being governed by a separate enactment, the Lagos Local Government Act 1959. Outside Lagos, the intention of the Local Government law was that a Divisional Council should be superior to a Local Council. In fact, the Divisional Council was the rating authority for Local Councils in its area of jurisdiction while the District Council was really not under the Divisional Council, only less in status, but was also a rating authority.
A further development in Lagos State in 1971 saw the scrapping of the three-tiered structure and gave way to an All-purpose District Councils structure for all the council areas as a result of the recommendations of Ogunnaike Report on The Tribunal of Inquiry into Re-organisation of Local Government Councils in Lagos State which the State Government accepted.
1.2 The East-Central, Rivers and South Eastern States.
These three States were what constituted the then Eastern Nigeria and had a common form of Local Government.
In the rural districts, there was a two-tiered structure comprising County Councils and Local Councils. The largest urban centres had Municipal Councils, and other urban centres were administered by Urban County Councils. These two types of urban local authority were regarded as being the same level of local administration as the County Council. However, the non-urban County Councils had supervisory powers over Local Councils within their area of jurisdiction.
1.3 The Benue-Plateau, Kano, Kwara, North Central, North Eastern and North Western States.
The six States whose areas formed what used to be known as the Northern Region of Nigeria retained many common features in their systems of local government. Formerly, all local governments were designated Native Authority (NA), but this title was retained at that time in North Western and North Eastern States. Kano and Kwara had constituted “Local Government Authorities”; Benue-Plateau had set up “Local Administrations’ and North Central had also set up ‘Local Authorities.”
In the former Northern Region, a three-tiered and, sometimes, four-tiered structure of local government was in operation consisting of the Native Authority, District Council, and Village or Village Group Councils.
1976 Local Government Reform
The scenario above was what could be called the system of Local Government administration in Nigeria before 1976.
In 1976, the Military Administration decided on a single local government system for Nigeria on the basis of Dasuki’s Report. It approved that the designation of a local government unit of operation should be: “Local Government Council” and went ahead to decree the number for each State of the Federation. It also saw to it that elections were held into the new council areas in December, 1976 and they all took off in January, 1977.
1979 and 1983 (The Civilian Era)
The 1979 Constitution vested the creation of Local Government Councils in the State Government. Many of the 19 States then created new local government areas. (Lagos State was created into 23 LGAs). But when the Military took over on December 31, 1983, it reverted the number of local government councils in the country to its pre-1979 number. (Accordingly, Lagos State was reverted to 8 LGAs).
1984 to Date
Between 1984 and now, all the changes in number of local government areas in Nigeria were made by the Military by Decree.
Up till 1996, additional local government areas were created without the input of the Nigerian people: only the successive Military Administrations conceptualized and decided on the various increases.
In 1995/96, the Abacha Regime set up a high powered committee on creation of new local government areas. The committee worked hard for over a year and submitted a report with recommendations. But in the usual manner of that time, the report was jettisoned and the Government announced a 30% increase across the board of existing local government areas in each State of the Federation to further worsen the existing injustice in the distribution among States. For example, Lagos with almost the same population as Kano moved from 15 to 20 while Kano moved from 34 to 44, creating further inequity out of the existing inequality. (Emphasis is mine).
The 1996 review gave Nigeria a total of 774 local government council areas (6 of which were created for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja).
Since 1976, no civilian administration has successfully created additional local government areas in Nigeria.
The Way Forward (Recommendations) We all know that local government system is a sine qua non to the development of the grassroot in our various communities. But to remind us and bring the matter close to our chest, I quote below an excerpt from Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s contribution to the debate on the second reading of a Local Government Bill in 1952 in the Western House of Assembly:
“The importance of local government in any political set-up cannot be over- emphasised. It is the foundation on which the massive and magnificent superstructure of State, Region or Central Government, is erected. It is the training ground in political awareness and civic responsibility for a much larger number of public-spirited citizens than can ever have room to operate on the
Regional or National levels. Its day-to-day doings directly affect those who live within its jurisdiction, for better or for worse. Indeed, it is the most effective agency by means of which Regional or State Government ministers to the basic needs, welfare and general well-being of the citizens.” End of quote.
It has therefore become imperative for us to take the bull by the horn by terminating the iniquity created by inequitable distribution of local government areas in Nigeria (see Annexure) and erecting through amendment of the relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution a more equitable local government superstructure that will enable us “to minister to the needs, welfare and general well-being of our citizens”.
I propose the following actions on the sections of the 1999 Constitution listed hereunder as my recommendation to right the wrong of over four decades in Nigeria in the matter of Local Government Administration:
In summary, my recommendation is that Local Government creation, structure, finance and administration should be made exclusive function of the State Governments. I also suggest that Sections 7 and 162 can be further strengthened to accommodate stiff sanctions in order to ensure compliance by the Governors of laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly relating to sharing of allocations.
Second Republic Secretary to Lagos State Government Olorunfunmi Basorun, in this memo to the National Assembley, examines how the sonstitution amendment can pave the way for the restoration of true federalism
Nigeria has been bedeviled with myriad of problems, especially in three decades (1985 – 2015). Major among these problems are insecurity, leadership corruption and mass unemployment. Efforts made by various administrations to address these problems have not only failed to produce the desired results, but have also led to people propounding irrelevant panacea. That is why we talk about restructuring, fiscal federalism, true federalism, regionalism, resource control devolution of powers, et el. The time is ripe for us to move away from these “jargons” and settle for what will be in the interest of majority of Nigerians, irrespective of tribe, ethic nationality, religion or creed.
We must consciously develop optimism and prayers in seeking the WELFARE of our people. The Western and Eastern blocs are now silent (or have abandoned) SOCIALISM, CAPITALISM and COMMUNISM: they all practice WELFARISM.
Let Nigeria take a cue from this and put in place a Constitution that will guarantee the well-being and genuine aspiration of all Nigerians.
My memorandum will seek to address a Constitution that will ensure this noble objective is achieved. I am happy our President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is laying a solid foundation for a Welfare State of my dream.
Creation/merger of states
No new States should be created; there is also no need to merge the existing ones.
We should continue on the basis of 36-State structure. State creation is an engine of growth sort of, but we should not continue to proliferate it.
• We should give the 36 States more time to develop and overcome the teething problem of funding.
• From 3 regions at independence in 1960, we have moved from 12 to 19, 19 to 21, 21 to 30 and 30 to 36 States as at 1996.
Devolution of power
In our own federalism, the central government has certain legislative powers (in the Exclusive Legislative list) as part of the second schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) while the State holds and operates on the residual powers. There is also the Concurrent Legislative list in part II of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) where the central and states operate pari-pasu.
My recommendation is as follows:
• Transfer some powers from Exclusive List to Concurrent list and add new ones to Concurrent list. See Annexure I.
• Remove some powers from Exclusive List to become part of Residual
We should maintain the 36-State structure. For administrative convenience and because they are already being used in certain circumstances with approval of all States, Geopolitical zones should stay and their existence should be legalized with a law by the National Assembly, but merely as administrative units.
They are;
REGIONALISM should not be contemplated at all.
Revenue Allocation and Fiscal Federalism
The new sharing formula shall take care of the additional function transferred from the Exclusive List to the Concurrent/Residual functions which by implication become more functions for the States.
On Fiscal Federalism, especially in the area of remuneration for political office holders in the State and Local Governments (Governors and Council Chairmen in particular), uniform rates across the 36 States and 774 Local Governments should stop.
Instead, every State and Local Government should fix such remuneration based on the quantum of fund available, both Statutory allocation and internally generated revenue; the principle of “cut your coat according to your cloth” should apply.
Form of government:
The form of Government should remain Presidential/Federalism.
Central government with Exclusive Legislative Powers and 36 States as federating units with Residual Powers.
As discussed above, geopolitical zones shall be legally recognised as mere administrative units.
Independent candidacy
I fully support a constitutional provision to allow qualified Nigerians to contest election at all levels, viz Councillor, Council Chairman, State Governor, State Assembly Member, House of Representative Member, Senator and President.
Local government autonomy
The current Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) should continue to be the grundnum of Local Government System in Nigeria. For avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the Section as follows;
“The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.”
Their functions should remain as in Schedule IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). I still maintain and reiterate that Local Government System as specified in the Section 7(1) quoted above should be constitutionally remitted to the State government.
On autonomy, I do not agree that local government administration in Nigeria should be autonomous. If “autonomy” by dictionary definition is (1) “immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority; or (2) political independence”, our Local Government Councils are not ripe for it. The proponents of autonomy are complaining that State Government manipulates the Joint Account to the detriments of the Councils; this is not general.
What we have heard and seen in many cases is that, most Councils owe council staff and Primary School teachers several months’ salary; and even have no fund for performing their constitutional functions because their States tamper with funds in the Joint Account.
My recommendation is for other States which have not done so, to take a cue from Lagos State by deducting at source all payments due to the Councils’ Staff and Primary Schools’ staff and remitting same to the Councils and, in the case of Primary Schools, to SUBEB; the balance is then credited to the Councils for other services.
We should instead of seeking autonomy prematurely, address two major lapses in the revenue allocation and distribution to the Local Governments.
First, the provision of Section 162(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that States should give a proportion of their total revenue to local government is not being implemented in virtually all the States.
I suggest that the various state assemblies should ensure compliance, and I propose that it should be 10% of total revenue (the Constitution is not definite on the quantum).
Secondly, Section 162(8) of the Constitution (as amended) requires the State House of Assembly to make a law to prescribe the modality for sharing the federal allocation to Local Governments in a state in bulk to the state government and the state contribution. The State Assemblies should be bold enough to enact this sharing formula law and thus stop the arbitrariness currently involved in the sharing of the fund in Joint Account.
Power Sharing and Rotation We should have a policy of rotation of key elected positions – an extension of section 14(3)(4) of 1999 Constitution (as amended).
National Power rotation
• President shall rotate between the Northern and Southern (3 Zones) Nigeria provided that it will rotate among the zones in either side of the divide.
• Vice President shall be from the side of the divide not producing the President and shall rotate among the zones – either side of the divide.
Governor:
Governorship shall rotate among the three Senatorial Districts of a State.
Deputy Governor shall be produced by any of the two other Districts.
1. NIWA act should be abolished in line with Oronsaye report.
2. Functions of NIWA should not be transferred to NPA.
3. Only functions that may be transferred to NPA if at all are functions permissible for the FGN under the 1999 Constitution to enable monitoring of international navigation and interstate transport. No functions that will hamper State control of its waterways should be transferable to any new Agency of the FGN.
4. All other functions should be relinquished to the State Government including NIWA assets like ferries and jetties that will have become irrelevant for its use.
5. Governors of the State in conjunction with other littoral state Governors must lobby the Chief of staff / Presidency and implementer of the Oronsaye report to scrap NIWA and not transfer the functions to NPA.
Review of the 1999 Constitution
I have read the draft bill produced by THE PATRIOTS to amend the 1999 Nigerian Constitution published in the Comet issues of 29th and 30th January 2000. I presume the document would have been submitted to the Presidential Technical Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution. I also assume that the draft bill was made public to enable other Nigerians have input into the views of the Group. This is commendable. The document itself is a masterpiece and a product of deep thought and concern for the future of our dear country, Nigeria. I congratulate the members of the Group and pray that their efforts will not be in vain.
However, I perceive our great men in THE PATRIOTS have allowed the fallouts of our inglorious past to propel them to recommend what would be very difficult to sell to a very sizeable majority of Nigerians.
That is to return to the Regions; to subdivide the existing 36-State structure into six (6) and group certain number of States under a Region for the purpose of good administration and in the name of true Federalism. I disagree. Even when our Great Leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo (of blessed memory), insisted in his book, ‘Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution’, 1966 (Published by the Oxford University Press) that Federalism was the best type of Government Administration for Nigeria, he warned that opponents of Federalism should desist from seeing breaking Nigeria into States as fanning the ember of regionalism and tribalism and went ahead to recommend the splitting of Nigeria into eighteen (18) States. He did not suggest that the States be grouped under any regions. It was unnecessary. But he did point out the evils associated with regionalism and tribalism if used in a negative manner.
His words:
“As derogatory epithets, regionalism and tribalism mean, in our own understanding:
(1) morbid adherence or loyalty to one’s region or tribe to the exclusion, prejudice, and detriment of other regions or tribes;
(2) discriminatory practices designed to favour one’s region or tribe at the expense of, or to the prejudice or detriment of the other regions or tribes;
(3) inciting one’s region or tribe against the other regions or tribes; and
(4) exploiting one’s popularity or standing in one’s region or tribe for unworthy ends.”
We must be guided by these words of our late sage in recommending the return to regions in the manner enunciated in THE PATRIOTS’ draft bill.
I also do not support the consequent amendments with regard to the Nigeria Police.
Apart from these two fundamental areas, which form the bedrock of their draft bill, I share with THE PATRIOTS the same sentiments on the proposed amendments in respect of –
1. Section 231(1) and 231(3).
2. Section 251(1), (2) and (3).
I now proceed to elaborate on my humble submission against the position of THE PATRIOTS in respect of Regionalism and The Nigeria Police Force.
The Nigeria Police Force
The proposed amendment in respect of the Nigeria Police, especially with regard to the retention of a single Police Force, is highly commendable and fully supported. It is a bold approach and a true reflection of the level of maturity of The Patriots and their preference for security of lives and property in the country.
Having said that, I venture to request The Patriots to look again at their amended version of Sections 214, 215 and 216 of the 1999 Constitution:
Section 214 – In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with sub-sections 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of section 214 of the 1999 Constitution that warrants their being deleted. If only to avoid doubt, the sub-sections are providing for the obvious, which, at times, are ignored with serious consequences.
Section 215 – The new provisions cannot be reconciled with our own stand of no return to Regions. And in any case, even if for sake of argument the Regions are established, how do we expect an Assistant Inspector General of Police (bearing this title) to operate without a line/authority relationship with the Inspector General of Police?
Subordinates can only serve one master at a time to get useful results; and in this case, the ostensible master is the Inspector General and not the Governor.
Our suggestion is that Section 215 in the 1999 Constitution should remain with either
(a) total deletion of the proviso to sub-section (4) or
(b) the proviso to Sub-section (4) to be amended to read as follows:
“Provided that in carrying out any such directions under the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section the Commissioner of Police may request that the matter be referred to the President for his directions, where exigencies so demand.”
Section 216- I disagree with the new Section 216 and suggest we retain the existing Section 216 in the 1999 Constitution. There is need to examine the language employed in the peculiar provisions with respect to North/South dichotomy as recorded in the draft amendment and also indigene factor: both of which are being emphasised with respect to Police (and later Armed Forces) matters and which have not been the case in the treatment of other areas of our polity in this same Constitution. If we want sharing on certain basis, then we must endeavour to let it be applicable to issues affecting Nigerians in all case; for example, Presidency, Governorship, Council Chairmanship, etc.
Regionalism
The idea of re-introducing the regions into the structure of the Nigerian polity at this point in time is retrogressive, expensive and out-of-tune with the general thinking in a modern Nigeria. It is like dragging us 50 years back from this period (i.e. To the beginning of political administration in Nigeria). If regionalism, now being canvassed by THE PATRIOTS, was tabled before the various Constitutional Conferences in the 1950’s, the idea would have received some favourable consideration, and a lot of changes would have gone into whatever might have been agreed at that time such that the Nigeria of 2000 will definitely not be what it is now nor what THE PATRIOTS are proposing.
THE PATRIOTS’ membership has many varied senior citizens of Nigeria, and also highly learned experienced and resourceful materials this country can boast of any day. They are all eminent Nigerians. We are also privileged to have in THE PATRIOTS men who have been involved in the drafting of our constitutions in the past. There is nothing
I may say about the past that will be strange to them. It is an undisputable fact that Nigeria has not witnessed a stable democratic rule since 1966.
But during this period, the political emancipation gained by the various ethnic groups through the creation of states and local government councils has become not only part of our history, but also part of the everyday life of these people to which they are pathologically attached. If the new constitution is for these same people, then it must be fashioned to recognise the reality on the ground, that is, the local independence enjoyed by all since 1960, which has brought a lot of physical development into areas, hitherto neglected because of their ethnic or tribal chauvinism.
A simple example:
Going by THE PATRIOTS’ proposal, we are to have six (6) regional capitals;
Viz. –
• JOS for North-Central
• MAIDUGURI for Northeast
• KADUNA for Northwest
• ENUGU for Southeast
• PORT-HARCOURT for
South-South
• IBADAN for Southwest
So, – the people of Lagos whose control had always been from Lagos and who only had the other parts of the Colony Province ceded to it to become Lagos State 33 years ago, will now report to a Regional Capital in Ibadan (over 125 kilometres away). – or the Edo/Delta people whose entire life had been with the West and who got ‘Independence’ in 1963 to be where they are today to now report to a Regional Capital in Port Harcourt; – or the ‘Sharia’ Niger, to report to a Regional Capital in Jos of Plateau State; etc.
The same scenario can be repeated for all the 36 States and the 768 local government councils.
If the proposals of THE PATRIOTS are adopted, the following Administrative Set-ups will emerge in the 36 States:
Maybe, the Judiciary will be spared in this highly expensive venture.
The multiplier effect of creating the various new positions in the New Regions as shown above will be such that the cost of keeping the machinery of administration going may not even be available, not to talk of any state or region having fund left for capital projects. We must not deceive ourselves: no new Regions or any existing state will want to operate without having in place a minimum of the positions listed above.
All these personnel who are only at the apex of government administration will need the basic administrative infrastructure (vehicles, office and residential accommodation, furniture, equipment, etc.) to be able to function. N30, 000.00 minimum wage for the workers is today a problem for some States in the Federation!
If only for the cost implication, Regionalism should be jettisoned. It is unprogressive, very expensive and not in consonance with the state of political, economic and social development of the Nigerian people. I plead with The Patriots to have a second look at the proposal again.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We must go the whole hog.
• Note: It is necessary to point out that the substitution of “Police Service Commission” for “Nigeria Police Council” in The Patriots’ new Section 216(E) is a misnomer: The appropriate body to delegate function in respect of ‘powers’ is the Police Council not Police Service Commission.
1. Early History of Local Government System in Nigeria Between 1937 and 1952 the Northern and Southern Nigeria operated what was known as Native Authority (NA) which has its own courts and police to administer at the grassroots level. While this system changed in the Western and Eastern parts of Nigeria in the early 50s, it continued in the Northern part until after independence.
A summary of the practice in the four regions then was as follows:
1.1 The Lagos, Midwestern and Western States.
There was a close similarity between the Local Government arrangements in the Lagos, Midwestern and Western States as the areas of these States except the city of Lagos were all formerly part of the Western Region of Nigeria. The common Local Government law provided for a three-tiered structure comprising Divisional, District and Local Councils although, in practice, only a one-tier system was found in most parts of these States and, in other areas, there were never more than two-tiers of Local Government.
Lagos City Council was in a special category being governed by a separate enactment, the Lagos Local Government Act 1959. Outside Lagos, the intention of the Local Government law was that a Divisional Council should be superior to a Local Council. In fact, the Divisional Council was the rating authority for Local Councils in its area of jurisdiction while the District Council was really not under the Divisional Council, only less in status, but was also a rating authority.
A further development in Lagos State in 1971 saw the scrapping of the three-tiered structure and gave way to an All-purpose District Councils structure for all the council areas as a result of the recommendations of Ogunnaike Report on The Tribunal of Inquiry into Re-organisation of Local Government Councils in Lagos State which the State Government accepted.
1.2 The East-Central, Rivers and South Eastern States.
These three States were what constituted the then Eastern Nigeria and had a common form of Local Government.
In the rural districts, there was a two-tiered structure comprising County Councils and Local Councils. The largest urban centres had Municipal Councils, and other urban centres were administered by Urban County Councils. These two types of urban local authority were regarded as being the same level of local administration as the County Council. However, the non-urban County Councils had supervisory powers over Local Councils within their area of jurisdiction.
1.3 The Benue-Plateau, Kano, Kwara, North Central, North Eastern and North Western States.
The six States whose areas formed what used to be known as the Northern Region of Nigeria retained many common features in their systems of local government. Formerly, all local governments were designated Native Authority (NA), but this title was retained at that time in North Western and North Eastern States. Kano and Kwara had constituted “Local Government Authorities”; Benue-Plateau had set up “Local Administrations’ and North Central had also set up ‘Local Authorities.”
In the former Northern Region, a three-tiered and, sometimes, four-tiered structure of local government was in operation consisting of the Native Authority, District Council, and Village or Village Group Councils.
1976 Local Government Reform
The scenario above was what could be called the system of Local Government administration in Nigeria before 1976.
In 1976, the Military Administration decided on a single local government system for Nigeria on the basis of Dasuki’s Report. It approved that the designation of a local government unit of operation should be: “Local Government Council” and went ahead to decree the number for each State of the Federation. It also saw to it that elections were held into the new council areas in December, 1976 and they all took off in January, 1977.
1979 and 1983 (The Civilian Era)
The 1979 Constitution vested the creation of Local Government Councils in the State Government. Many of the 19 States then created new local government areas. (Lagos State was created into 23 LGAs). But when the Military took over on December 31, 1983, it reverted the number of local government councils in the country to its pre-1979 number. (Accordingly, Lagos State was reverted to 8 LGAs).
1984 to Date
Between 1984 and now, all the changes in number of local government areas in Nigeria were made by the Military by Decree.
Up till 1996, additional local government areas were created without the input of the Nigerian people: only the successive Military Administrations conceptualized and decided on the various increases.
In 1995/96, the Abacha Regime set up a high powered committee on creation of new local government areas. The committee worked hard for over a year and submitted a report with recommendations. But in the usual manner of that time, the report was jettisoned and the Government announced a 30% increase across the board of existing local government areas in each State of the Federation to further worsen the existing injustice in the distribution among States. For example, Lagos with almost the same population as Kano moved from 15 to 20 while Kano moved from 34 to 44, creating further inequity out of the existing inequality. (Emphasis is mine).
The 1996 review gave Nigeria a total of 774 local government council areas (6 of which were created for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja).
Since 1976, no civilian administration has successfully created additional local government areas in Nigeria.
The Way Forward (Recommendations) We all know that local government system is a sine qua non to the development of the grassroot in our various communities. But to remind us and bring the matter close to our chest, I quote below an excerpt from Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s contribution to the debate on the second reading of a Local Government Bill in 1952 in the Western House of Assembly:
“The importance of local government in any political set-up cannot be over- emphasised. It is the foundation on which the massive and magnificent superstructure of State, Region or Central Government, is erected. It is the training ground in political awareness and civic responsibility for a much larger number of public-spirited citizens than can ever have room to operate on the
Regional or National levels. Its day-to-day doings directly affect those who live within its jurisdiction, for better or for worse. Indeed, it is the most effective agency by means of which Regional or State Government ministers to the basic needs, welfare and general well-being of the citizens.” End of quote.
It has therefore become imperative for us to take the bull by the horn by terminating the iniquity created by inequitable distribution of local government areas in Nigeria (see Annexure) and erecting through amendment of the relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution a more equitable local government superstructure that will enable us “to minister to the needs, welfare and general well-being of our citizens”.
I propose the following actions on the sections of the 1999 Constitution listed hereunder as my recommendation to right the wrong of over four decades in Nigeria in the matter of Local Government Administration:
In summary, my recommendation is that Local Government creation, structure, finance and administration should be made exclusive function of the State Governments. I also suggest that Sections 7 and 162 can be further strengthened to accommodate stiff sanctions in order to ensure compliance by the Governors of laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly relating to sharing of allocations.
Nigeria was cobbled together by Sir Fredrick Luggard, a Briton, representing the British Colonial Government, on January 1, 1914.
Code named “amalgamation” the north and the south were amalgamated into one country, and this ended all sectarian wars fought by the natives against the British colonialists and interlopers.
Even as colonialist, Britain recognized the complexities and demurred nature of the people they were colonizing. The British colonialists knew the complexities and the multifaceted nature of the different peoples united together in a country, and was ready to honour such peculiarities by refraining from imposing a unitary system of government on them.
Britain made good its plan when it divided the country into twenty four provinces of twelve in the north and twelve in the south. By 1954 it collapsed the twenty four provinces into three regions of North, East and West. He also appointed premiers for the regions.
This was the era of true federalism, when the colonial Governor General merely functioned as overseers to the Premiers who governed their regions with free hands, and with their leadership qualities in tandem with their regions resources, and they achieved much progress and development.
The West under the indomitable late Chief Obafemi Awolowo shone brilliantly like the northern star to the cyclosure of the other regions. At independence in 1960, the British colonialists now departing the scene, bequeathed to the new nation the parliamentary system of government as practiced in Britain.
Under the parliamentary system of government, there was a titular President as Head of state, a Prime minister, as head of the government and premiers as regional rulers. The semblance of true federalism was still very much in vogue here, because the premiers were still in control of their regions and could use regional resources as wisely as their wisdom and ingenuities of administration could carry them.
Because of the freedom and free enterprise which true federalism permitted, the then premier of the North, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, refused to come to Lagos to become the Prime Minister as the Leader of the NPC, which was victorious in the 1959 pre independence general elections.
Instead, he chose his second in command, Sir Tafawa Balewa. According to Sir Ahmadu Bello, “I prefer to be premier of the Northern Nigeria and Sardauna of Sokoto than to be the Prime Minister of Nigeria”.
This systemic true federal constitutional government was practiced right from independence in 1960 till January 15, 1966 when the military rudely and shockingly took over in a military seizure of power from the civilians. Corruption as opposed to the unworkabilitiy of the parliamentary system of government was blamed for the collapse of the First Nigerian Republic (1960 – 1966).
But for charges of corruption among the various leaders and dramatics personaes of the government, there was nothing absolutely wrong with the Parliamentary system, a system still practiced in Britain our erstwhile colonial masters.
The January 15, 1966 coup dramatically changed the course of Nigerian history because the officers that later emerged as military rulers failed to live up to the expectations of the people. For example, the obnoxious Decree 34 enacted by General Ironsi did more harm than good by unifying everything, including centres of powers into one hierarchical single line of administration. All appeals for Ironsi to see reason and foreclose such dangerous system of government, for a multiplicity of ethnic and socio – cultural people with a multidisciplinary needs and views about life, generally fell on deaf ears.
Deservedly, General Ironsi met his comeuppance and nemesis in a counter coup on 27th July, 1966. Except for a brief interlude between 1979 and 1983 when Alhaji Shehu Shagari became President and later toppled in a palace coup by General Mohamadu Buhari on December 31, 1983, the military hence held the nation’s politics at a jugular until May 29, 1999 when they voluntarily conducted a general election, and relinquished power to the civilians after close to three decades of military rule.
Both the 1979 and 1999 constitutions, were engineered by the Military but merely used learned civilian cohorts as draftmen. The provisions were at the whims and caprices of the military. Above all, it was a unitary constitution aptly depicting the nature of the military of the command and order system peculiar to the military.
Really, this must be expected, because the foray of the military into politics was both an aberration and an anomie. It was a misnomer to expect the military to draw up a constitution for civilian administration. In 2024, it will be exactly twenty five years since the civilians took over power from the military uninterrupted. The present incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will make the fifth, and yet there has been a major fear to enact a true civilian constitution as a replacement to the militarily skewed Nigerian constitution.
The best done so far has been series of amendments to the constitution. Successive governments since 1999 have parried on with schemely parched constitution which fortuitously continue to abridge the rights and benefits of Nigerians from all walks of life.
Constitutional experts seemingly aver that no serious nation will be content with administering its people with a parched constitution, a document regarded as the life – wire of a country’s socio – economic and political administration.
The imprisoned Nobel Prize winning poet and former Burmese leader, Daw Aung Son Sun Kyi said “It is not power that corrupts, but fear”. After more than two decades of civilian rule, successive civilian Presidents have feared to enact a true federal constitution with a devolution of power to the states, just as practiced after independence.
Nigeria borrowed the presidential system of government it presently practices from the United States where all the fifty – two states exercise sovereignty over their states. Nigeria’s Presidential system seems to prefer its thirty six states to be dependent on the centre where they go every month with cup in hands to receive monthly allocation from the federation accounts.
If really Nigeria wants to follow the American system of government, true federalism is not just devolution of power to the constituent units of the country. The indices and parameters of true federalism are more than the narrow conceptual clarification many analysts of true constitutionalism tend to give to it. For example, in a true Federalism, democracy is a dialectical relationship between the governed and the government.
Since May 2023 when this government came on board and the removal of oil subsidy, enormous sums of money have been released to the states, quite unprecedented, yet there is not much to show for such financial windfall. Recently, it took the president to ask and demand for the reports of their expenditure of such largesees, as people continue to groan and lament the current harsh economic realities. Yet until the president cried foul of the indifference of the governors, the people themselves folded their arms and looked in utter bemusement as lives ebbed out of many over socio – economic hardship.
In a true federalism, politics should be constituency based. Politicians should establish and stay in touch with their political base, which is generally defined by the interests of the people. Politicians must carry their constituencies wishes and aspirations to the National Assembly to bargain and by compromise and consensus gain acceptability of leaders to become the national agenda for implementation.
Many politicians abandon their constituencies shortly after election and due to lack – luster recall system, many drudge on aimlessly, achieving nothing politically for their people.
Restructuring as conceived politically means organizing a society or polity to give a new or a different structure altogether. This past one decade, series of debates and controversies have trailed the issue of restructuring of the country, ostensibly to deal with the inherent forces of inertia and deceleration presently clogging the feet of the country towards progress.
Protagonists of restructuring seem to consider the present structure of government as rather dangerous to removing the forces threatening it of possible ossification. Today, restructuring as was being emphasized some years ago, is now a reality and no longer a mere idea. Although there are people still not conversant with the acute and critical situation and derelict condition to which the country has fallen in the recent past.
Restructuring should ensure a new quality of life in all spheres of life of the country i.e. political, economic, social, religious, cultural, and intellectual. Restructuring is supposed to provide a radical change in the tapestry of the society for we cannot be satisfied for too long with the way we have lived and worked these previous years.
The debacle of protagonists and advocates of restructuring is the dearth of clarity of the type of restructuring being advocated for the country. Certainly, it cannot be the Gorbachev Russian type of glasnost and peretrioka. Failure of socialism pushed Gorbachev to clamour for restructuring in the sense of advocating for democratic process to forestall Russia’s continued isolation from world cooperation.
What Nigerian needs is true federalism involving devolution of power to the states and the practice of authentic democratic tenets of separation of powers among the three arms of government – executive, legislative and the judiciary.
Restructuring as presently being contemplated need not lead to the collape of the states into regions. That certainly is nothing but retrogression. What was good about regions in the 50’s cannot be guaranteed to work in 2024 because Nigerians of today have advanced beyond that.
Despite the unitary nature of the Nigerian constitution, successive governments since 1999 have taken some laudable steps considered as the right step in the right direction. For example, the idea of dividing the country into a six geo – political zones is a political master stroke which if proper administered could guarantee the over – all development of the various zones.
By collaborating maximally, especially through the economic law of comparative advantage, the zones can become centres of advancement for the country as a whole. Whether in parliamentary or presidential system, separation of powers among the three arms of government is a desideratum in a democracy. Thomas Hobbes was impressed by the degree of checks and balances that operated in Britain and recommended it for the French government.
Since 1958 when France established the 5th Republic, the government has remained sustainable. Sadly Nigeria neither practices true federalism nor due democratic system, hence the dearth of separation of powers among the arms of the state. Lack of this also was responsible for the poverty of ideology in political party system where politicians cross carpets freely and unabashedly.
There is palpably nothing wrong with the present structure of government in the country. What seems imperative now is the federal government condescending to devolution of power by trimming down the exclusive list and release to buoy up the states to stand on their feet financially and be free of strings of the federal might.
Federal Government should come to terms with devolution of powers to the states and avoid the bogey of being bogged down by fear of losing power. When you give power to many, they have fewer people to oppress, but when power is in the hand of few, they oppress many.
And the limit of oppression by tyrants, is the degree of endurance by the oppressed.
There are immense benefits in power devolution from the central government to the states.
•It will make the states stronger and powerful and resourceful enough to take care of their finances, as opposed to the present Oliver twist where they ask and make more demands on the federal government.
•It will end the regime of inertia and complacency by the governors, especially those of them who no longer think creatively and deeply on how to generate funds for the running of their states. Governors have been spoilt as a result of huge monthly allocations from the Federation account.
•Devolution of power to the states means that the president has less problems to tackle and so can concentrate on the real governance of the country.
•With devolution of power to the states, states like Lagos can even have more money than the Federal Government and its Governor earning more than the President. In United State, the Governor of New York earns better than the President. In the likely ensuing democratic process, Local Government Council should be given the power of autonomy to free them from ampit of the state Governors.
•With a viable 36 state governments, strong 774 Local Government councils, performing legislature, conscientious judiciary, only sparingly will people talk or make reference to the federal government because their needs are met.
True federalism will cut down the present overweening power of the centre and consciously establishing the much agitated true federalism, now being canvassed by thoughtful and concessionary Nigerians.
Nigeria, the most populous black nation-state in the world, appears to be in a fix.
For how long can it continue to pretend to be a federal nation-state?
No doubt, the “mere geographical expression” is retarded by a unitarist model masquerading as federalism. The solution is a return to a proper federal principle, and many believe that the current administration is in a vantage position to redress the injustice of centralisation.
The ‘skewed or lopsided federation’ is facing the most challenging test of survival. The Nigerian brand of federalism is on trial. To its intended beneficiaries, it is confusing, divisive, unproductive, provocative and fundamentally unjust. All over the country, feelings of anger and revolt by ethnic nations ooze from the fear of domination, marginalization, deprivations and injustice, making the trembling antagonistic ethnic groups to now brainstorm on how to re-define their place in the disputed Nigerian federation.
Indisputably, the beleaguered country has paled into a poor ethnically-segmented country battling to survive a unitary system, aptly foisted on it by military interlopers. Sixty three years after independence, there is a combative regression to the pre-independence battle cry for restructuring at a time developed countries expect the African sleeping giant to be a continental model of federal democracy.
Nigeria’s defective federal system has become its albatross. It is a skewed arrangement, with an inbuilt lopsided and marginalising distributive process that has heralded colossal injustice and induced intense agitations. The major bone of contention is the over-centralisation and monopolisation of power by a distant central government to the detriment of pauperised and disadvantaged component units in the heterogeneous country. The notion of unity in diversity has been displaced, owning to prolonged perceived structural defects and institutional deformities, which deny the reality of peculiarities in a plural society.
The country is enveloped by protracted identity, participation and distributive crises. In its current fragility, it totters on in a self-inflicted ‘federal decay.’ The troubled country reflects the awful picture of an amalgam of incompatible social formations. It is gradually being submerged in growing ethnic, religious and other centrifugal tensions.
The victim of the identity crisis is national cohesion. The gains of national unity are wiped out by the revival of primordial sentiments. The inevitable emotional detachment from the deceitful federal conception constitutes an obstacle to the development of national outlook.
Also, participation crisis is accentuated by the struggle of ethnic champions for power at the centre because, until recently, the ‘sectional Federal Government’, which has monopolised state power and resources to the detriment of aggrieved federating units, blocked the channels of decentralisation.
Cries of despair and despondency by few surviving founding fathers and their lieutenants fill the air. Obviously, they are seized by nostalgia, having witnessed the adoption and practice of unfettered federalism from 1946 under the Richard and Macpherson constitutions, and in the First and Second Republics. To them, even at the twilight of life, true federalism is still the answer.
Can restructuring stem the loming disaster? Many subscribe to the compelling argument that restructuring will solidify federalism, foster good governance, give a sense of belonging to aggrieved regions and states, and restore hope. Thus, to salvage the edifice that was built on the false colonial foundation erected by Lord Fredrick Lugard in 1914, political leaders and other stakeholders are exploring the alternative route to nation building to avoid disintegration.
International agencies, which had previously alerted Nigeria to a prospect of a ‘failed state,’ are urging speed, warning that delay could be dangerous. The re-enactment of the Yugoslavian and Czechoslovakian experiences may be catastrophic for Nigeria and its neighbours.
Across the six geo-political zones, attention is being re-focused on the contentious national question. Along this line alone, he the politics of inclusive discussion is unhindered. There seems to be an agreement that Nigeria faces a perilous future, unless the current system gives way for a re-vitalised and workable federal process, variously described or interpreted by diverse stakeholders as ‘federal configuration,’ ‘federal redesign,’ ‘federal reformation,’ ‘review of federalism,’ federal re-configuration,’ federal renewal,’ ‘federal re-engineering,’ ‘true federalism and ‘political restructuring.’
In extreme cases, unguarded outbursts and calls for confederation or a loose federation, a re-worked federation, secession and outright war have been troubling. These extreme options are being advertised by rebellious militant groups, ‘sit-at-home’ campaigners and other invisible protesters in the Eastern Region.
There is no consensus on all the elements of restructuring on the front burner. Restructuring is a broad concept. But, there seems to be an agreement on the cardinal goal of restructuring. It presupposes the existence of a structure built on a faulty platform or foundation that requires to be rebuilt or rearranged.
Restructuring, in the view of Kunle Amuwo, political scientist and University of Ibadan teacher, is intended to lay an institutional foundation for a more just and equitable sharing of political space by multi-national groups cohabiting in a federal polity. Other advocates would agree with him that “the strategic objective seems to be the solidifying-or perhaps, merely engendering-of a sense of national community.”
The implication is that the resolution of the contentious national question is germane to peaceful co-existence among the diverse ethnic groups.
Restructuring is also suggestive of an inevitable compromise; a display of the spirit of political bargaining by the distraught component units of the potentially fragile federation. As Amuwo put it, “restructuring is a better appreciation of the need for tolerance and respect for civil and civic rights of both aggrieved ethnic majorities and marginalised ethnic minorities.” This line of thought is consistent with the position of ambivalent protesters, who despite their adamant position on restructuring, have reiterated their commitment to a united and indivisible Nigeria.
Although the clamour for restructuring is now new, it has now become the main issue in the polity. The debate was kicked-off in the eighties by the activist-lawyer, the late Chief Alao Aka-Bashorun, who called for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC). Following the annulment of the historic 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP), the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) and Afenifere, the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, intensified the clamour. But, what is remarkable is that past opponents of the agitation, including former military rulers and other prominent Northern leaders, have retraced their steps and lent their voices to the crusade. Former military and civilian President Muhammadu Buhari and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar have decried the evil of unitarism and endorsed the popular demand. Even, former Military President Ibrahim Babangida once admitted that it is the solution. Since restructuring has also become a campaign issue in general elections, many politicians are always threading the path of populism by reaching out to Nigerians on the borrowed platform of restructuring.
Two decades ago, Afenifere Deputy Leader, the late Chief Bola Ige, predicted that a cloud of uncertainty was hovering over Nigeria. He said the country may not survive the tragedy, unless there was an agreement among the tribes on the basis for cohabitation. “Do you Nigerians want to live together in the same country? If yes, on what terms?” he asked. Echoing the slain Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Yoruba Assembly also warned that Nigeria risked disintegration, if its defective structure is preserved and the modalities for peaceful co-existence are not spelt out and mutually agreed upon. The Ohaneze Ndigbo, the Southsouth Assembly, and the Middle Belt Forum are singing the same chorus.
Recently, in Ado Ekiti, foremost lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola and former Commonwealth Secretary-General Chief Emeka Anyaoku implored the Federal Government not to turn a deaf ear.
The pro-restructuring crusade woke up the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) from its slumber ahead of 2023 general election. Although the party adopted restructuring as a core campaign promise, no concrete step has been taken in that direction by the Federal Government it has midwifed since 2015 beyond the recent limited concession to states to venture into railway and mineral deposit extraction.
