By Ebuka Onyekwelu
Since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999, various forms of agitations expressing the desires of the people of Nigeria for some structural reforms have become the mainstay of Nigeria’s democratic experience, up till date, after twenty-one long years. Conversations on resource control, propriety of state police, devolution of power, return to regionalism, local government creation, are some of the most vexatious and hotly debated areas requiring reforms.
These ultimately entail constitutional reforms as each of these will have profound impact on the structure of Nigeria’s federalism and on government system, outlook and functionality. In consequence, the regions or federating units will have more powers than the states now have and with this, it is assumed, the regions will do better in terms of driving development and ensuring the wellness of the people.
The optimism associated with demands for these reforms is not farfetched. Nigeria’s first republic experiment with regionalism only tends to support the argument that such structural changes may be better than what is currently obtained considering that regions made more impact and where more useful when they had more power and freehand. Although, the realities have changed and there is nothing to suggest that regions will do as better today, as they once did. This is because the regions then as they were, did not operate themselves. Whatever success they did record were made possible by the quality of human beings that were in charge of political leadership at the regions, in those days. Similarly, their shortfalls which later culminated into a civil war, was also not the making or unmaking of the regions as a mere structure. But the making of the actors within the system, then in operation.
Many people appear to be missing this very vital point. No political system anywhere is automated or designed to be independent of the actors. Instead, the actions of those controlling the machinery of government at each time shape the system and determine what it ultimately becomes or how it eventually turns out. The reality of the first republic is that there was a narrative, a very strong worldview that shaped the politics of those days and that increased chances for regional competition and consequently development. This is so because, as Dr. M. I. Okpala once averred, ‘tribalism is a tool for national development’, understandably so for the implicit competition which can be harnessed in each region for development. But on the other hand, that also increased chances of bitter ethnic clashes.
So it was not just about the 1963 constitution which permitted that structure, but about the spirit of the law which was then active and engraved within the actors at the time. At this point, I want to admit that nationalism does not call for the extinction of ethnic origins or identities. Put differently, nationalism does not call for people’s identities to be swallowed up. And this is the case all over the world. The question of ‘who’ is fundamental in any political equation, hence Laswell had defined politics as “who gets what, when and how”. Therefore, one can pose that the question of identity is the first question in any political pursuit. For Nigeria, it will not be different. The ‘how’ question is equally important and refers to the structure. The contentious areas of debate all are a subject of how the system works. To this end, the question has remained, “what structure is best for Nigeria”?
In Nigeria today, ‘restructure’ is one of the most commonly used political concept. Close to it is true federalism. As of now, both concepts have attained near messianic, auto-fix, acclimatization. In most places, once mentioned, they are jointly or differently seen as the very direct solution to Nigeria’s problems. A closer look at this development reveals that this messianic familiarization of restructuring is not entirely strange as it is not quite different in the manner many Nigerians except things to magically change for better, with or without their input. But even more profound is the fact that there is no perfect federal system. A federal system can either be top heavy or bottom heavy. That is to say that the local council or regional administrative structures may be the principal partner in the federation or the central government may be the dominant partner. Either way, the most defining element is shared power and shared responsibility.
The extent of which power and responsibility are shared varies and this does not invalidate the federal structure, which in the first instance could be more centralized or more decentralized; in government parlance: centrifugal or centripetal. Again, either way, a government by leaders who are ready to advance their own society can achieve development with any of the two federal models, because none in particular either supports or discourages development. And so here lies the critical Nigerian questions with regards to restructuring.
Can the same crop of leaders in Nigeria today; governors, local government chairmen and other public office holders, do better than they are doing under the present system, in a restructured Nigeria? Can governors or premiers as the case may be, now focus on governance and development simply because there is a change in the operational modalities of the system which gave them much more power than they previously had? Do the present generation of Nigerian leaders’ posses the same measure of intellect, strong regional ties, political perspicacity and astuteness, of the Zik, Balewa and Awolowo of Nigeria’s past? If indeed Nigerians are not looking for a cosmetic change of how government functions, while retaining the same rotten content, then these should be of more concern to us all.
The recent report of comments credited to the Deputy Senate President of Nigeria Sen. Ovie Omo-agege to the tune that the Senate cannot give Nigeria a new constitution, has been making the rounds as a de-motivation to a hope of a better country. But what exactly is stopping Nigerian political leaders from moving the country forward with the funds and powers they presently have at their reach and enshrined in the constitution? Precisely, why are governors not doing much to move their states forward in four or eight years? Why is the yearly budget of states not utilized for the advancement of the state and for the wellbeing of citizens resident in the state? Why are governors deliberately stifling local governments, while their funds remain largely unaccounted for? Why has the regional or geopolitical zone governor’s forum not been able to make weighty progress leveraging on regional cooperation? What exactly is preventing Nigerian states from making full use of the power they have at present by the constitution to deliver good governance to their own people? Is there a constitutional provision that forbids governors or political leaders from developing their states and empowering their own people?
In any case, it is plausible that if states cannot account for the money presently under their control and have not used same to better the lot of their people, they will also likely not do so much with the many they would have if they are given more power to control their resources. If regions and geopolitical zones have not had profitable cooperation that aims at bettering the lots of their region and people, then, it stands to reason that going back to regionalism or even something close like geopolitical blocs in place of states, has no guarantee of any semblance of good governance delivery, synergy and cooperation needed to engender massive regional development. If states cannot adequately support security outfits within their states to function optimally, how exactly will a state police make the difference.
This goes on and on. Yet, these are not arguments against restructuring. Instead, they are bold reminders that no system of government or model of federal structure in itself has the solution to Nigeria’s leadership and government crisis. The system and model notwithstanding, the leaders must work hard and must engage in serious cross examination of ideas; must be firm and honest in their dealings, and must be dutifully dedicated to the well being of the people, as well as to the expansion of growth opportunities for the masses.
At the end, restructuring means Nigerian students being able to go to school and earn the marks they deserve, graduate with a grade they deserve, be able to get a job they are qualified for without cutting corners and be able to work at the job and live decently. For the business community, it is for them to have favourable government policies and not be taxed with reckless abandon by different government agencies. For the populace, it is the assurance that they can count on their government to protect them and function wholly in their best interest.
Restructuring should be construed and rightly so, as metaphor for good governance and responsible leadership, where public monies do not find expression inside private pockets. It is an uttered desire by the people to be better governed, rather than having a mere change of institutional framework that in and of itself, has no guarantees but instead still require enormous work by the actors, to meet the expectations of the people.
Ebuka graduated with a second-class upper-division degree in Political Science from the University of Calabar in Nigeria. He furthered his education by obtaining a Master's Degree in Political Science with a specialization in Government and Development Studies from Nnamdi Azikiwe University in Awka, Nigeria. His academic background and professional experience have equipped him with a deep understanding of political dynamics and governance issues.
- Chief Ben Etiaba to Chair Ikenga Day 2025, in Paris - September 18, 2025
- Anambra State Police Command Boosts War on Cultism, Drug Abuse - September 17, 2025
- Former Anambra Governor, Willie Obiano Mourns Ex-Police Boss, Solomon Arase - September 5, 2025