BY BOLA ALAWODE
A bright young man with a promising future, full of love and ambition, takes a beautiful wife. Together, they are blessed with three healthy children, representing the fulfillment of their dreams and aspirations. Yet, their joy is short-lived. Tragedy strikes as a group of kidnappers abduct the wife and children, plunging the family into years of torment. Despite the payment of ransom on several occasions, the kidnappers continually refuse to release them. Years later, after yet another huge ransom, the family receives the shock of their lives. They are directed to an abandoned building where, instead of their beloved wife and children, they find a stranger—another woman, with 12 unfamiliar children. A document accompanies the scene, outlining a cruel ultimatum: “take care of this new family or never see your real wife and children again”.
This tragic narrative mirrors Nigeria’s political journey and experience as a nation. The husband represents Nigeria, a nation with hope for a prosperous future. The wife symbolizes the democratic federal system envisioned by the country’s founding fathers. The three children represent the three original regions: North, West, and East, that are carefully designed to balance Nigeria’s cultural and economic diversity. The kidnappers, in this narrative, are the military, who abducted Nigeria’s true federal structure and replaced it with an alien, inefficient system. The 12 children are the States created by the military to replace the three regions, and the document is the series of decrees and constitutions, including the controversial 1999 Constitution, that bind Nigeria in an artificial system of governance that is contrary to its original design.
At independence in 1960, Nigeria was structured as a federal state, with three main regions—North, East, and West—reflecting the country’s cultural, historical, and economic realities. Each region had a significant degree of autonomy, managing its resources, development, and policies while contributing to a central federal government. This arrangement allowed for healthy competition between the regions and a sense of balance in managing Nigeria’s diverse ethnic, religious, and economic interests.
The First Republic, though imperfect, operated under a true federal system. The regions thrived at different paces, but there was accountability, self-determination, and genuine governance tailored to the needs of each region. However, the growing discontent in certain quarters, largely driven by ethnic rivalries and political ambitions, led to a series of events that culminated in military intervention.
The first military coup of 1966 was a major turning point in Nigeria’s political history. The coup leaders suspended the constitution, dissolved the regional governments, and replaced the civilian structure with military decrees. This was the beginning of the gradual but deliberate dismantling of Nigeria’s federal system. With the military firmly in control, the first major blow to the federal structure came through the imposition of a unitary system of government by General Aguiyi-Ironsi, which concentrated power in the central government. Although his regime was short-lived, the foundation had been laid for a centralized government that would have far-reaching consequences for Nigeria.
In subsequent years, the military further weakened the regional structure by creating states. By 1967, General Yakubu Gowon divided Nigeria into 12 states, effectively replacing the original three regions with a more fragmented structure. The move was ostensibly to prevent secession, but it also served to dilute the power of the regional governments and increase the influence of the central authority. This process of state creation continued under various military regimes, culminating in 36 states, a structure that persists to this day. While this system gave the appearance of decentralization, in reality, it concentrated power in the hands of the federal government. The states, created arbitrarily, were financially dependent on the center, and many lacked the viability to function independently.
The military rulers also imposed new constitutions, particularly the 1979 and 1999 constitutions, which enshrined the unitary system under the guise of federalism. These constitutions, created without the input of the Nigerian people, continue to govern the country today. The 1999 Constitution, in particular, has been criticized as a military document imposed on the country, giving disproportionate powers to the federal government and limiting the autonomy of the states. It is a far cry from the true federalism that Nigeria’s founding fathers envisioned. The 1999 Constitution is often seen as the culmination of the military’s efforts to cement a unitary system under the façade of federalism. While it claims to be a federal constitution, in practice, it centralizes power in the federal government, leaving the states with little control over their resources, policies, and governance.
One of the most significant problems with the 1999 Constitution is the over-reliance on federal allocations. Most states in Nigeria are financially dependent on the federal government for survival. This dependency makes the states weak and unviable, unable to generate their own revenue or chart their own developmental course. In a true federal system, regions or states would have control over their resources and would contribute a portion to the central government. However, in Nigeria’s current arrangement, the reverse is the case.
Moreover, the constitution gives the federal government overwhelming control over key sectors such as security, education, and infrastructure, leaving little room for the states to make decisions that reflect their unique needs. This over-centralization has stifled innovation, development, and accountability at the state level, as governors and local officials are often more concerned with currying favor with the central government than addressing the needs of their constituents.
The creation of states by the military, initially intended to weaken the regions, has left Nigeria with a fragmented and dysfunctional system. While the idea was to prevent regional dominance and encourage unity, the proliferation of states has instead created a system of weak, dependent units that lack the capacity to govern effectively. Many of the 36 states are financially unsustainable, relying heavily on federal allocations for survival. This has led to a culture of dependency, where state governments are more focused on securing their share of the national cake than on developing their economies or improving the lives of their people. Instead of fostering competition and development, the creation of states has created a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, with many states unable to pay salaries or provide basic services to their citizens.
Furthermore, the creation of states has not resolved Nigeria’s ethnic and regional tensions. In fact, it has exacerbated them in many cases. The arbitrary boundaries drawn by the military have created new ethnic minorities in many states, leading to conflicts over resources, land, and political representation. Instead of promoting unity, the proliferation of states has deepened Nigeria’s divisions.
Just as the husband in the narrative is forced to live with a stranger instead of his real wife, Nigeria has been forced to operate under a system that is alien to its history and aspirations. The federal system, which allowed for regional autonomy and competition, has been replaced by a unitary system that stifles development, accountability, and good governance.
The question remains: how can Nigeria return to the true federalism envisioned by its founding fathers? How can the country reclaim its kidnapped wife and children—the democratic federal system and regional structure that once held so much promise?
The path forward for reclaiming Nigeria’s future lies in its return to the principles of true federalism. This will require a fundamental restructuring of the country’s political and constitutional framework. The crucial steps will include:
- Constitutional Reform: The 1999 Constitution, which is a relic of military rule, must be replaced with a new constitution that reflects the will of the Nigerian people. This new constitution must be drafted through a truly inclusive process, with input from all regions and ethnic groups. It must decentralize power, giving the states or regions greater control over their resources and governance.
- Resource Control: States or regions must have control over their natural resources and the ability to generate revenue. This will encourage competition, innovation, and development, as regions will be incentivized to manage their resources efficiently and attract investment.
- Devolution of Powers: The federal government must devolve more powers to the states or regions, allowing them to make decisions on issues such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and security. This will enable states to tailor their policies to the needs of their people and promote greater accountability.
- Fiscal Federalism: A system of fiscal federalism must be implemented, where states or regions contribute a portion of their revenue to the federal government, rather than relying on federal allocations. This will reduce the dependency of states on the central government and encourage them to develop their economies.
- Ethnic and Regional Inclusion: The process of state creation must be revisited to address the ethnic and regional tensions that have been exacerbated by arbitrary boundaries. New solutions, such as regional autonomy or the creation of ethnically diverse regions, must be explored to promote unity and inclusion.
The narrative of the kidnapped wife and children is a poignant metaphor for Nigeria’s political journey. The military, through a series of coups and decrees, kidnapped Nigeria’s federal system and replaced it with a unitary system that has stifled the country’s development and potential. The current system, embodied in the 1999 Constitution, is a far cry from the true federalism envisioned by Nigeria’s founding fathers.
To reclaim its future, Nigeria must insist on returning to its original federal structure, where regions or states have the autonomy to govern themselves, control their resources, and compete for development. Only then can Nigeria achieve the greatness that its people have long aspired to.
It’s better late than never.
Bola Alawode is a HSE and Security Consultant, a Counselor and a Minister of the Gospel. Tel: 08033101339. Email: [email protected]
