The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Indigeneship Bill

  • Indigeneship Bill: Dishonest push to redefine indigeneity in Nigeria

    Indigeneship Bill: Dishonest push to redefine indigeneity in Nigeria

    Indigeneity is defined as the “fact of ORIGINATING or OCCURING NATURALLY” in in a particular place – that is what some people are dead set to change.

    “Azikiwe: “Let us forget our differences.”

    Ahmadu Bello: “No, let us understand our differences. I am a Muslim and a Northerner. You are a Christian and an Easterner.

    By understanding our differences, we can build unity in our country” -being arguments during the campaign for the federal elections of December 12, 1959 when the man who most exemplified division in Nigerian history, coyly preaching unity because he erroneously believed that his people will Lord it over the other parts of the country.

    Sequel, among other stratagems, to Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma’s remarks  on the Indigeneship bill at the South East Public Hearing in Owerri, a

    highly perspicacious Press Statement, in the form of a WhatsApp post, trended throughout the past week.

    Authored by  Otunba A.J Odunowo, it read as follows:

    “RE: My Position on HB2057 and the Push to Redefine Indigeneity in Nigeria

    I have observed with deep concern the recent push to alter the legal definition of “indigeneity” in Nigeria, particularly as proposed in HB2057, sponsored by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu and echoed by Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma in his constitutional reform remarks at the South East Public Hearing in Owerri.

    While I support every Nigerian’s right to dignity, inclusion, and development wherever they reside, I firmly reject the dangerous attempt to legislate indigeneity as a residency-based privilege.

    Indigeneity is not a status that can be assigned by fiat. It is rooted in ancestry, cultural lineage, and historical custodianship of land. It represents a community’s identity, heritage, and connection to its homeland. To redefine it as something that can be acquired through birth or prolonged stay undermines the very fabric of our multicultural nation.

    We must not confuse civil inclusion with cultural inheritance.

    My Position Is Clear:

    1. Indigeneity is non-negotiable.

    It cannot be transferred, awarded, or diluted by residency or “good conduct.” No serious nation legislates away the ancestral rights of its native peoples.

    2. Equal rights for settlers must not come at the cost of indigenous rights.

    Nigerians living in other states already enjoy full civil liberties the right to vote, own property, do business, and hold public office. What they are not entitled to is custodianship of cultures they do not descend from.

    3. HB2057 is anti-indigenous and unconstitutional in spirit. If passed, it will breed resentment, escalate land disputes, and deepen cultural dislocation. It threatens traditional institutions and undermines the federal structure.

    4. The National Assembly must refocus its energy on the real demands of the people, that is, restructuring Nigeria into federating units aligned with ethnic and cultural heritage, equitable resource control, and strengthening state-level governance, including state policing.

    I encourage all well-meaning Nigerians, particularly traditional rulers, indigenous associations, and civil society organisations across all regions, to reject this bill in its entirety.

    Nigeria cannot build unity by erasing identity.

    We can only build a truly inclusive nation by recognising and respecting the diverse foundations upon which this country stands.

    Let us defend indigeneity not to divide, but to preserve the integrity of our shared heritage”.

    I am allying myself with this press statement as it is very much in tandem with my position in the article:’Taking the wind out of Hon Kalu’s indigeneship bill’

    of 4 May, 2025 which reads as follows:”Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu CON, of the All Progressive Congress, is an Igbo politician and current Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. He represents the Bende federal constituency of Abia State.

    It is not surprising, therefore, that he is the sponsor of the Indigeneship Bill now before the House of Representatives. The Bill

    seeks to grant indigene status to individuals who have resided in a state for 10 years or married a native for the same length of time.

    It is coyly proposed as a progressive bill intended to cohere the country like the National Youth Service which mandates Nigerian University graduates below a certain age to serve for one year in a part of the country different from theirs.

    But nothing can be further from the truth.

    Given Igbo’s very small piece of territory which, besides its size, is landlocked and impedes their truly industrious proclivities, they are spread so thin all over the country that there can be no community in the country, no matter how

    small in which you will not find an Igbo.

    While this in itself is not bad, Igbo’s inexplanable, but totally unchecked, desire to own things, belonging to others, especially other peoples lands, is the elephant in the room. This abhorrent characteristic of theirs has rendered them completely otiose to other Nigerians in literally every part of the country.

    Read Also: Nigerian scientist pioneers defence tech, clean water, waste-to-wealth innovation

    But please, do not take my word for it.

    Rather, see below a WhatsApp dialogue, moderated by a so- called Okonkwo and several other Igbos, concerning Yoruba land, especially Lagos, which they love to call a ‘No Man’s Land’, and for which they would readily kill without batting an eyelid:

    DISCUSSION THEME: Ndigbo Will Conquer and Rule Oduduwa Republic.

    “We must take Lagos. We must. Those who want to keep it are fighting themselves.Those of us who want to take it must fight harder. The people who want to keep it are threatening, we that want to take it must be prepared for that threat.

    There”s no new thing they are going to do now in Lagos. We already know what they will do. Therefore we must prepare ourselves in large numbers …”

    “Because if we do not take Lagos, I do not know if you can still stay in Lagos.To remain in Lagos, for your parents to go to that church, for you to enter that estate, enter that bus, Igbos just must take Lagos” – mind you, they don”t even want to win but TAKE Lagos”.

    “… the only way is to defeat them; so we can lock them up and send them to jail”.

    That is what motivates all this rambunctious fight for an indigeneship bill.

    It is ill motivated.

    The quoted portion above was spoken in a stentorian voice that could only have reminded one of Ojukwu’s efette boasts shortly before he led millions of them to their early graves in an unnecessary war, after which he promptly evaporated”.

    But that is not all to the Igbo plan, to consummate which Hon Benjamin Kalu is now feverishly at work in the Peoples’ House.

    They went further:

    “We will join Afenifere and soon be part of the powerhouses that will be eligible to be crowned Obas -(these are a people without Obas, historically without leaders.)

    We will get married to the daughters of Oduduwa , build mansions in their towns and villages and only visit our country home in the land of the rising sun, once a year, as usual. Gradually we will turn Oduduwa Republic into one of the most ethnically mixed countries in the world.

    Can a war plan be more detailed?

    What Igbos are saying is that they would do anything to win Lagos state – rig, burn, kill etc,  come the next election.

    All these also remind me of my article of 16 February, ’25

    titled: Non – Indigenes Should Be Barred From Contesting Governorship, Senate, House Of Representatives and Council Elections wherein I wrote:

     “If for the sake of equity amongst all Nigerian states,  representation in the senate is set at 3 members per state, and constituency, determined by population, is the basis for allocating the number of Reps a state can have,  why are non- indigenes allowed to  contest for these positions outside their state of origin?

    I consider this grossly unfair in a country like ours where, for instance, some states in the Southeast geo- political zone would not tolerate a Catholic cleric, even of the same Igbo ethnic stock, as their parish clergy – even if appointed by the Pope himself – if he comes from outside their state.

    This we have seen severally.

    It could, in fact, be far worse, as happened when the entire indigenous peoples of Aba Ngwa not only rose, like one man, to reject a non- indgene as the Mayor of Aba, but  dared their  governor, Alex Otti, to do so – see  Vanguard October 19, 2023.

    These are the same people who come loaded with money, from all manner of sources, to try everything  to contest elections in Southwest Nigeria in particular”.

    Why would Igbos not understand that this is nothing short of long throat. Why are they ever so desirous of that which belongs to others, even when they would not extend such privileges to non- Igbos anywhere in the entire Southeast?.

    This is the same reason  IPOB’s map of Biafra extends far beyond Ndigbo territory into far away Edo, Delta, even  Bpenue.

    LHowever, the time has come for them  to apply the brakes. They must not only know that enough is enough, they should realise the following facts as put together by another writer on Hon Kalu’s bill:

    “… if passed, the bill will undermine the fundamental essence of indigenous identity, thereby jeopardising the rights and cultural heritage of Nigeria’s indigenous communities.

    The fundamental problem, as the  writer put it,  lies in its attempt to replace birthright, ancestral lineage, and deep-rooted cultural identity with superficial, time-bound criteria since idigeneity is not something one acquires through mere residence or marriage.

    It is an inheritance passed down through generations, woven into the very fabric of a people’s history to tamper with which wil undermine the very essence of our traditional societies.

    All the points being adduced in justification of the bill fall flat because they fail to recognise the spiritual, historical, and cultural depth that define an indigenous person. In Yoruba land, for instance, being an indigene is tied to ancestral lineage, not just a length of stay. This bill therefore seeks to erase the sacredness of identity in favour of some generic, politically motivated re-definition, all for the purpose of exploitation by a people who are never content with what God has given them.

    Finally, if they are not being selfish, they should ask themselves questions as to how many non – Igbos would benefit from this law, if passed, in places like Enugu, Onitsha, Aba, Owerri etc even when whole Igbo cities would literally empty themselves into other parts of the country just to take undue advantage.

    The National Assembly sure has its job already cut out if its members would like to be on the right side of History.

    Potential for exploitation and marginalisation

    Opening the gates of indigeneity to non-indigenous individuals through residence and marriage introduces the risk of opportunistic claims, which could lead to the marginalisation of authentic indigenous populations. As history has shown, policies that do not adequately safeguard native rights often result in the displacement of the very people they should protect. If enacted, HB.2057 could enable those with no genuine ancestral connection to a land to claim indigene rights, potentially sidelining original inhabitants from economic opportunities, governance structures, and access to local resources.

    Threat to local culture and governance

    Every indigenous community in Nigeria has a distinct governance system, deeply rooted in traditions that have been carefully upheld for centuries. The passage of HB.2057 would create an avenue for those without historical ties to a land to participate in and influence its governance, often without understanding or respecting its cultural nuances.

    Related News

    Stakeholders mull preservation of Nigeria’s cultural heritage as Piql offers digital solution

    AGLOFEST to celebrate Africa’s rich cultural heritage

    Cultural heritage key to peaceful coexistence — Ogun monarch

    Yoruba land, for instance, has a long-established system of monarchy, chieftaincy, and traditional councils that regulate societal structures in line with historical traditions. Allowing external influences to dictate the affairs of an indigenous community would disrupt these systems and gradually erode the unique governance identities of different ethnic nationalities.

    Questionable motives behind the Bill

    HB.2057 was introduced by Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu and six others under the guise of national integration and unity. However, its political undertones cannot be ignored. If truly aimed at fostering national unity, why was there no broad-based consultation with traditional leaders, cultural custodians, and grassroots communities before its presentation? The bill appears to serve a larger agenda—one that prioritises political convenience over the preservation of Nigeria’s diverse ethnic identities.

    Our stand: The preservation of indigeneity

    As Yoruba people, and as Nigerians committed to the protection of our cultural heritage, we stand firmly against HB.2057. Indigene status is not just a label—it is an embodiment of ancestry, tradition, and history that should not be compromised for political expediency. We, therefore, call on the Federal

    Government, the National Assembly, and all stakeholders to:

    (i)Reject HB.2057 in its entirety. This bill is a direct attack on the foundational identity of indigenous Nigerians and must not be allowed to stand.

    (ii)Preserve the original meaning of indigeneity. Indigenous status should remain a recognition of those with deep, historical, and cultural ties to their communities, not something that can be obtained through temporary residence or marriage.

    Engage traditional institutions in any discussions on indigeneity.

    The Nigerian government must recognise and involve community leaders, traditional custodians, and indigenous groups in any discourse surrounding national identity, governance, and resource allocation. Such a crucial matter should not be decided in the corridors of political power without consulting the true custodians of heritage.

    Conclusion: A call to action

    Indigeneity is not up for negotiation. It is not a status that can be handed out based on convenience. It is a sacred right that has preserved communities, cultures, and traditions for generations. HB.2057 is an assault on this legacy, and we must resist it with all our might.

    We call on all Yoruba sons and daughters, and indeed all Nigerians who value their heritage, to reject HB.2057 and demand its immediate withdrawal. Let us unite to ensure that our birthright is not sacrificed in the name of political convenience. Our ancestors fought to preserve our identity—now, it is our turn to defend it.

    • Bokini wrote on behalf of Yoruba Nimi Empowerment Foundation.
  • Much ado about Indigeneship Bill

    Much ado about Indigeneship Bill

    By Paul Asiodu 

    In recent days, social media is awash with “probably sponsored” articles and comments rejecting and claiming that there is an ulterior motive regarding the Indigeneship bill, currently before the House of Representatives.

    While everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, they should also be wise enough to be thoughtful and critical to understand the malaise any legislation seeks to cure before joining the bandwagon, adopting a popular idea, trend or behaviour.

    This recent “faux outrage”, reminds one of the same reaction when the tax reform bills were introduced. The people opposing it failed to recognise the significant legislative effort in Nigeria to overhaul the country’s tax system, as the bills aim to simplify the tax structure, modernize tax administration and boost revenue.

    The proposed Indigene Status Bill while aiming to engender national unity and development, has faced significant opposition, primarily from groups like the Think Yoruba First Organisation Worldwide (TYF). These criticisms often frame the bill as an “expansionist agenda” designed to deprive “indigenes” of their birthright and threaten ancestral sovereignty, potentially leading to civil unrest. 

    Such perspectives underscore the deep-seated tribal sentiments and historical attachments to land and identity that permeate Nigerian society. However, a closer examination reveals that much of this opposition may stem from a lack of understanding, regarding the bill’s national scope and its alignment with global best practices. 

    The issue of indigeneity is not confined to Yorubaland; it is a national challenge affecting almost all parts of the country. The concept of indigeneity in Nigeria has evolved into a significant barrier to national integration and equitable development. Its ambiguous legal standing and arbitrary application have created a complex web of discrimination and conflict, profoundly impacting the lives of millions of Nigerians.

    The absence of a clear, constitutionally defined “indigeneity” has allowed for the proliferation of arbitrary administrative rules at state and local government levels, effectively creating a system of “two-tier citizenship.” In this system, the rights and opportunities available to Nigerians vary significantly depending on their “state of origin” versus their state of residence.

    Despite Section 25(1) of the Constitution, promising a single Nigerian citizenship and Section 42 expressly forbidding discrimination based on birth, Section 318(1) of the 2011 Constitution (as amended) paradoxically promotes “nativist rights” for those “born of the soil”. 

    The notion that “first in time is first in right” is frequently invoked to justify discrimination against long-term resident non-indigenes, making it difficult for them to find work and limiting their access to resources. This systemic ambiguity in defining indigeneity has led to the institutionalisation of discrimination, creating a profound legal and social schism. This is not merely an administrative oversight but a fundamental flaw that undermines the very foundation of national unity and the rule of law. 

    Globally, data reveals that 50 economies prevent women from transferring citizenship to their foreign spouses on an equal basis with men, and 28 economies prevent women from passing nationality to their children in the same way as men. Such gender-discriminatory restrictions limit women’s access to inheritance, property ownership, and formal employment.

    Anecdotal evidence highlights the pervasive nature of this discrimination, such as the case of an Akwa Ibom judge reportedly rejected for a Chief Justice position in Cross River State despite being married there and living for decades. Another concrete example is the Abia State government’s dismissal of 80 women from Ebonyi State due to their non-indigenous status, even though many were married to Abia men. This occurred because administrative regulations often regard women as belonging to their natal Local Government, not that of their husbands.  

    Conversely, the historical election of a Northerner as mayor in Enugu in “good old days” suggests a period of greater inclusivity that has since eroded, underscoring the regressive nature of current practices.  

    The systematic exclusion of non-indigenes from key economic and political opportunities represents a significant underutilization of Nigeria’s human capital. When capable and talented individuals are routinely denied opportunities based solely on their “origin” rather than their merit, skills, or potential contribution, it leads to a profound misallocation of human resources, stifling innovation, reducing overall productivity, and impeding economic growth. 

    It also breeds deep resentment, frustration, and a pervasive sense of injustice among those denied their fundamental rights, contributing significantly to social instability and undermining the very ideal of a unified nation where all citizens are afforded equal opportunities and dignity.  

    READ ALSO; $3B Eastern Rail line: Tinubu unlocking prosperity of South East – Kalu

    Furthermore, it contradicts international human rights standards and treaties that Nigeria has committed to, undermining its global standing and internal social justice. 

    This suggests that a framework is a crucial, foundational step towards de-escalating the matter, directly and commendably addresses this critical and long-standing issue.

    ABOUT THE BILL

    To address this impasse, some members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) to guarantee indigene status to persons by reason of birth or continued residence for a period not less than ten years or by reason of marriage and for other related matters.

    The proposed legislation sponsored by the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Benjamin Kalu, and co-sponsored by Hon. Ginger Onwusibe Hon. James Faleke, Hon. Blessing Amadi Hon. Regina Akume, Hon. Khadija Bukar Ibrahim and Hon Adbussamad Dasuki has passed second reading and currently before the committee on constitution review.

    It seeks alteration of CFRN, 1999 (As amended), “Alteration of Section 31.Section 31 of the Principal Act is altered by inserting new subsections “(2) – (5)” –“(2) A citizen of Nigeria is an indigene of a State if he –(a) was born in that State and has lived in the State for a continuous period of at least 10 years; or(b) was not born in the State but has resided in a Local Government Area of that State for a continuous period of at least 10 years and can provide evidence of tax payment in that State for at least 10 years. (3) A person under subsection (2) of this section is entitled to apply to the Local Government Chairman for a certificate of indigeneship of a State. (4) A woman who is married to an indigene of a State different from her State of origin for at least five years becomes an indigene of that State and is entitled to all rights and privileges of an indigene of that State in cases of employment, appointment or election into any political or public office.

    “In the case of divorce or death of a spouse, a woman remains an indigene if –(a) there were children born of the marriage or not; or(b)  she elects to remain an indigene of that State. Alteration of Section 318.Section 318(1) is altered by substituting the interpretation of “belong to” with – “belong to” or its grammatical expression when used with reference to a person in a State refers to a person either of whose parents or any one of whose grandparents was a member of a community indigenous to that State or the wife or husband of such a person and such husband or wife shall continue to belong to that State upon dissolution of marriage or death of spouse.”

    GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON CITIZENSHIP AND LONG-TERM RESIDENCY 

    Understanding the global landscape of citizenship acquisition is crucial for evaluating Nigeria’s proposed reforms. Nations worldwide employ diverse legal frameworks to define who belongs and how belonging can be acquired, often reflecting their unique historical, demographic, and economic imperatives.

    Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, and Naturalization. Generally, citizenship is acquired through two primary principles: jus soli (right of soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood), or a combination thereof. Naturalization serves as a common pathway for individuals who have established long-term residency and wish to acquire full citizenship.Jus soli, meaning ‘right of soil’, grants nationality or citizenship to anyone born within the territory of a state, regardless of their parents’ nationality. This principle is predominant in the Americas, with countries like Canada, the United States, and Brazil being prime examples. 

    The global landscape of citizenship laws is not static but dynamically evolves based on a nation’s historical context, demographic needs, and economic objectives. The selection of a particular system is often deeply rooted in historical context, such as the British Empire’s widespread adoption of jus soli versus France’s post-revolution shift to jus sanguinis before reverting. 

    These choices are also driven by specific national needs; for instance, France’s return to  jus soli aimed to bolster its population after war, while the United States adopted jus soli as a nation of immigrants. This demonstrates that citizenship laws are not immutable, rigid constructs but rather flexible policy tools that can be adapted and reformed to serve evolving national interests, such as managing population demographics, stimulating economic development, or fostering social integration.

    Canada: Practices unrestricted jus soli, granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on Canadian soil, regardless of parental immigration status. For naturalization, permanent residents must reside in Canada for 1,095 days (approximately 3 years) within five years of application. Canada’s Express Entry system can grant direct permanent residency, leading to citizenship in about 3 years.

    United Kingdom: Grants birthright citizenship if at least one parent is a British citizen or permanent resident at the time of birth. Individuals can also apply for citizenship after 10 years of continuous residence.  

    Germany: Offers conditional birthright citizenship for children born after January 1, 2000, if at least one parent has legally resided in Germany for 8+ years and holds permanent residency. Naturalization is possible after eight years of legal residency, requiring language proficiency and a citizenship test. Germany has recently modernized its nationality act to accept dual citizenship in all cases, removing the requirement for foreigners to give up ties to their home country when naturalizing.  Ireland: A child born in Ireland after 2005 becomes an Irish citizen if one parent is an Irish/British citizen or a lawful resident with 3+ years’ residence in the past 4 years. Naturalization typically requires 5 years of residence.

    Portugal: Citizenship can be applied for after 5 years of legal residence and passing a basic language test.  Argentina: Requires only 2 years of residency to become eligible for citizenship, along with an income and basic Spanish ability.  

    Peru: Allows naturalization after 2 years of residency.  European Union (EU) Long-Term Resident Status: The EU Directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents sets conditions for obtaining a permanent and secure residence status after at least five years of legal residence in an EU country. This status grants a set of uniform rights, similar to those enjoyed by EU citizens, in terms of work, education, and social security. 

    Bangladesh: Foreign husbands can acquire Bangladeshi citizenship through naturalization after two years of residency, while foreign wives can obtain citizenship immediately upon marriage.  

    Nigeria’s current de facto jus sanguinis approach to indigeneity, while historically tied to ethnic distinctions, is demonstrably detrimental to its contemporary national integration and economic goals. The proposed bill, by incorporating elements of jus soli (birth + residence) and naturalization (residence + tax, marriage), aligns precisely with this adaptive nature of global citizenship laws. This indicates a necessary evolution for Nigeria to meet its pressing challenges of internal migration and national cohesion, directly refuting arguments that indigeneity is an unalterable “sacred cultural and historical bond”.

    Benefits of Indigeneship Bill for Nigeria

    The proposed Constitution Alteration Bill offers a transformative pathway for Nigeria to address its deep-seated challenges related to indigeneity, fostering national integration, stimulating socio-economic development, and strengthening human rights. The current indigeneity framework, with its arbitrary distinctions and exclusionary practices, actively undermines national unity. 

    This amendment bill currently before the house presents a crucial opportunity to dismantle these artificial barriers and foster a more cohesive national identity. By defining indigene status based on birth within a state (with continuous residence), long-term residence (with tax payment), or marriage, the bill shifts the paradigm from ancestral claims to demonstrable integration and contribution.

    This approach reduces the “us vs. them” mentality that fuels inter-ethnic conflicts over resources and political power. By granting uniform rights across states, the bill would promote free mobility of people, goods, and services, fulfilling the constitutional duty to promote national integration. 

    This aligns with global experiences where inclusive policies for internal migrants or refugees, such as granting rights and access to services, lead to greater social and cultural integration, higher rates of intermarriage, and increased trust in institutions. 

    The bill’s proponents, including Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, emphasise that “laws must do more than sit on paper – they must solve problems”.

    In conclusion, all well meaning Nigerians are urged to take concerted effort to educate the public on the long-term benefits of this bill and to foster a national dialogue that transcends primordial sentiments.

    Overcoming the resistance to change requires emphasizing that national laws, when made, should not target a tribe, religion, or region, but rather serve the collective good of the entire nation. The passage and effective implementation of would not merely be a legal amendment; it would signify a visionary leap towards a truly integrated, equitable, and prosperous Nigeria. 

    It is a necessary step to dismantle the barriers that perpetuate division and to build a nation where all citizens can contribute to, and benefit from collective progress, fostering a shared sense of destiny that transcends ethnic and regional lines.

    Paul Asiodu, a Legislative Analyst, writes from Delta State