There have been many suggestions on how to build the Nigeria of our dream beyond the rhetoric of politicians, who promise to build bridges where there are no rivers. The Nigeria I have in mind is one where the constitution meets the people’s aspirations, by providing a workable federation structure and processes of governance that take the diversity of the country into account. It should be a constitution that provides opportunities for self-fulfillment for various groups, thereby making separatist agitations undesirable. What is still unclear is a word picture of how such a new Nigeria might look like.
While, despite liars and saboteurs, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been working hard to stabilise the country through globally acclaimed economic reforms, the debate rages on the kind of Nigeria he should aim at building. There are two major suggestions.
The constitutional approach
The constitutional approach has been the default approach, with two distinct groups leading the advocacy. One group argues that there really is nothing wrong with the 1999 constitution (as amended). The problem, they argue, is with the implementation. The country would be fine if only political actors respected the constitution they swore to obey. True, the constitution is flouted here and there, but that is only part of the story.
The other group argues that the constitution is so flawed that it must be thoroughly reviewed. Once the constitution is amended properly, they argue, all our problems will be solved. However, despite many attempts at reviews, including two major constitutional conferences, the constitution stays flawed.
There are far too many problems with the constitution, two of which are paramount. One, it lacks legitimacy, because it was a military imposition, which adopts the American presidential system in appearance but not in details or in practice. It was an attempt to give an acceptable face to the unitary system of government first imposed by the military after the notorious coup of 1966 and then codified into the 1979 constitution.
However, a close look at the 1999 constitution shows how far away it is from the American model. For example, the American constitution guarantees relative autonomy of the 50 federating states, including control over their own local governments, resources, education, agricultural activities, elections, and police for security. The 1999 constitution does not guarantee such level of autonomy to the 36 states and even recognizes 774 Local Government Areas, thus raising questions about their status as political units and complicating the power of states to control them. Moreover, the distribution of the LGAs is far from the realities on ground. For example, Osun and Ondo states have comparable populations, but Osun has 30 LGAs, while Ondo is given only 18!
Two, the 1999 constitution over-concentrates power in the federal government, by giving the centre exclusive control over education (via UBEC, JAMB, NUC, NBTE, TETFund, and so on); elections; domestic security via unitary police; and many others. The constitution also gives the centre a greater share of resources as well as control over the sharing of resources generated by the federating states.
Dr. Joe Abah succinctly outlines the negative consequences of over-centralisation of power and resources in a recent lucid essay (see Rebuilding Nigeria through devolution and decentralisation, The Daily Times, October 1, 2025). They include wasteful spending; corruption; and impunity. Worse still, states depend on monthly federal allocations, leading citizens to overlook states and blame the federal government for everything. This is the dilemma faced by the Tinubu administration, which continues to be blamed, despite providing states with more than double their previous allocations.
The devolution approach
The devolutionists believe that the present arrangement has three major shortcomings. One, the structure of the federation is so unworkable that a new arrangement is needed that provides the incentive for federating units to look inwards rather than to the federal government for sustenance. Less than half of the existing 36 states could be regarded as viable in that sense. Many of them are unable to pay the new minimum wage, while also owing salary and pension arrears.
Two, it is imperative that power and resources devolve from the centre to the federating units in order (a) to encourage the federating units to manage their affairs more productively and empower their residents to strive for self-fulfillment; (b) to allow the federal government to concentrate on its core duties of national defense, economic policy, and citizen welfare; and (c) to shift the blame game from the federal government to the federating units, thereby making both more accountable to the people.
Two tasks must be accomplished to achieve these goals. First, the federating units have to be delineated into manageable entities, while reducing the expensive overhead costs the present 36-state structure entails. Moreover, the new units must be empowered to manage their own affairs for reasons well articulated by Chief Bisi Akande, himself a fervent advocate of devolution of powers and resources: ‘Federating units or subsidiary units are usually the theatre of action. That is where you have the land, the forests, the farms, the schools, the hospitals, the manufacturing industries, and even the roads and the citizens, together with daily economic and social activities.’
There are two competing suggestions on what the federating or subsidiary units would look like. One group advocates a return to the old regions. The advocates of this approach tend to be older citizens, who grew up during the old parliamentary system in which three or four regions were the subnational governments. Critics of this approach cite the large but unequal size of the old regions and the trapping of minority populations within them.
The other group advocates the reconstitution of the present six zones into federating units. Among the advocates of this approach are internationally recognised administration and governance experts, including Dr. Abah and Professor Adamolekun, who has even authored a book on the subject (see Reflections on Governance and Development in Nigeria, published in April 2025).
However, the above task is not achievable unless the constitution makes it possible. Hence, the present constitution must be replaced by one in which the citizens are invested, and which changes the structure of the federation into one in which the present zones are the federating units. The zones would become states, to be known by their geographical nomenclature as Southwest, South-south, Southeast, Northeast, North Central, and Northwest or by some other agreed names. Each state will decide on what to do with the various units within it. However, there should be relative uniformity in the nomenclature. In the United States, for example, the political unit immediately below the state is the County. However, subunits of counties are known by various local names.
A critical aspect of the new constitution should be the allocation of resources. Dr. Abah has suggested a 20-30 percent share for the federal government, while the subnational units receive 70-80 percent. I align with Professor Adamolekun’s suggestion of 35:65 share as in the 1963 constitution.
As indicated at the beginning, state allocations have more than doubled because of President Tinubu’s economic reforms. Yet the evidence of the bonanza is scanty across many states. Unless steps are taken to make the subnational governments more responsible and accountable, it will be difficult to sustain the gains of the reforms. A devolved federation along the lines suggested above is sorely needed to make the subnational governments more responsible and accountable, while making ‘life more abundant’ for the citizens, in the words of the sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo.