Tag: Nigeria

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.

Read Also: Saudi trip yields investments, jobs for Nigerians – Edun

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.