TOWARDS A BALANCED FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF

NIGERIA.
A paper presented by Joe Nwodo to A Meeting of the Nigerian
Institute of Strategic Management In Calabar on 7 8 May,
2010
1.

INTRODUCTION

Out of the several political challenges that confront the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, one stands out as the most important. This is the vexed and recurring issue
of balancing the political structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Nigeria has
been in existence for ninety-six years out of which it was ruled for thirty-seven
years as a unitary state by its British colonizers from 1914 to 1951. For the rest of
the fifty-nine years of its existence it has been ruled as a federation.
Despite the fact that there are people in Nigeria who would prefer either a unitary
or a confederal arrangement for Nigeria it would be appear that the predominant
consensus is that Nigeria should be run as a Federation. But agreement on
federalism is not synonymous with agreement on the type of federal structure that
Nigeria should adopt. Nigeria commenced life as a federation with three regions
namely Northern Nigeria, Western Nigeria and Eastern Nigeria. Subsequently in
the first Republic the number of regions rose to four when a part of Western
Nigeria was carved out as the Bendal State of Nigeria. The Federal Republic of
Nigeria was at this time totally unbalanced since the then Northern region
encompassed 75 per cent of the land area and 60 of its population. This led the
North to permanently dominate the Federal Government of Nigeria. This was the
principal reason for the first Nigerian coup d tat in January 1966.
Since the overthrow of the unbalanced Federation of four regions, Nigerians have
clamoured for a balanced Federal Republic. This led to the increase in the number
of states from 4 to 12, then to 17, 19, 30 and now 36 states. Yet with thirty six
states the countrys federal system is still regarded as unbalanced. Consequently
the agitation for more states has become a continuing phenomenon fuelled by the
fact that states is one of the factors taken into account in the distribution of our
national revenue. Frustrated communities who cannot achieve the desired pace of
development within their existing states usually opt for the creation of a new State
1

out of their existing state. The Ijebus for example are demanding for the creation of
an Ijebu State out of the present Ogun State. The people of Nsukka in Enugu State
and the Idoma people of Benue State are demanding for the creation of Adada and
Apa States respectfully out of their present Enugu and Benue States. The current
requests for new states are up to fifteen in number. This raises the question of
whether the Federal Republic of Nigeria can ever achieve a true balance in its
federal structure. Inevitably as the political fragmentation of the country continues,
the Federal government grows more in stature and becomes a de facto unitary state
masquerading as a federation. When will this political fragmentation come to an
end? When will Nigeria comparatively speaking become a balanced Federal
Republic?
Our topic today involves a critical review of the several efforts to achieve a
balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria. Everybody agrees that in order to harness,
our prodigious human and natural resources we require a stable and appropriate
form of Governmental organization which will enable us to bring out the best in
our people. In the first Republic the balance of power revolved on the
overpowerful regions to the detriment of a weak Federal Government. Today the
centre of gravity has shifted from the states to an overpowerful Federal
Government of Nigeria. Notwithstanding this total swing of the national power
pendulum, Nigerians are still earnestly searching for a balanced Federal Republic
of Nigeria. The subject matter cannot, therefore, be developed without a study of
the history of the balance of power in the Nigerian political system. The main issue
in the examination of this history is to determine how the changes in the national
balance of power from time to time has shaped or contributed in shaping the
national quest for a balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria. Our exploration into
history is perfectly justified because the struggle for a balanced national political
structure is as old as Nigeria itself. Among those who shaped the struggle are first
and foremost, the British colonizers of Nigeria. Their efforts were followed by
those of our founding fathers. They took over the unbalanced colonial Federal
structure planted by the British. They added one more region known as Midwest
Region (or Bendel State) to the three other British created regions. The most
decisive influence on our federal structure did not however come from our
founding fathers. It came from the Nigerian Army which not only overthrew the
Federal Government of Nigeria in 1967 but also succeeded in overhauling the
national political structure. Between 1967 and 1996 the Nigerian Army as the
Federal Military Government of Nigeria created additional thirty two states so that
Nigeria became a Federation with thirty-six states.
2

By the time the Army ended up with this 36 State Federal structure the character
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had become substantially transformed from a de
jure Federal Republic of Nigeria to a de facto unitary state. This transformation
from a Federation of three to four unbalanced regions and the subsequent
explosion into an unbalanced Federation of 36 States took place in three distinctive
periods 1 of our national history.
These were:
The period of informal federation 1900-1914
The period of formal federation first phase 1946-1960
The period of formal federation second phase 1967 to date.
During each of these periods a distinctive contribution was made by the respective
forces then in control of our political destiny to shape the federal structure of
Nigeria. It is not only informative but of great political significance to understand
how these respective forces at these three distinctive periods in our history helped
to shape the structure of the Nigerian Federation. The nature of the forces which
were at work in evolving our Federal structure will help us to establish the correct
parameters for establishing a viable, political, cultural and economically balanced
Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is most appropriate that our historical survey should
be followed by an analysis of the correct parameters which are germane to the
evolution of a properly balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria. These parameters
include a balance in the territorial structure of the component units of the
federation, a fair balance in the division of powers between the Federal
Government and the State Governments, a fair balance in the division of national
revenue so as to ensure financial effectiveness of each level of government in
liquidating its functions, the use of the peculiar Nigerian principle known as the
doctrine of federal character in ensuring a fair balance in the distribution of the key
positions in the federation. Also of strategic importance is the application of the
doctrine of cooperative federalism in strengthening and consolidating the
relationship and the balance of power between the states and the federation. In
analyzing our parameters for evolving a balanced federation, we shall constantly
bear in mind that Nigeria is in a new world a new era where its only choice is to
pull itself up and showcase itself as a strong and formidable nation liberated from
our past ruinous and unproductive inter-ethnic cleavages of the last 96 years and
firmly ready to emerge as one of the twenty most prosperous nations in the globe.
We conclude with a summation of the trends, patterns and conclusions emanating
from our study. Before going into the foregoing matters, we shall first of all
dispose of two preliminary matters the comprehension of which are basic to the
3

elucidation of our subject matter. In the first place, we shall look at the nature of
Nigerian society and the claims by some eminent scholars including some of our
founding fathers that only a federal system of government is suitable for the
Government of our heterogeneous, territorially diverse and culturally divergent
peoples. Secondly, it will facilitate the development of our subject to have a
working definition of federalism.

2.

THE NATURE OF NIGERIAN SOCIETY2

Arising from its vast territory and its diverse ethnic groups, Nigeria faces the
distinct challenge of how to administer its heterogeneous peoples numbering over
150 million.
This challenge does not rest merely on the fact that we have a plural society
consisting of 300 or more ethnic groups who speak different languages, and who
belong to different religions. The main problem is that the differences in Nigerians
plural society is compounded by differences in outlook, attitude, and way of life.
There are deep and fundamental differences which make the people inhabiting
Nigeria not to be looked upon as one people but as different peoples. On the one
hand are the Yorubas and the Igbos who inhabit the South. These tribes are mainly
Christian (there are pockets of Moslems though), and have accepted Western
civilization. The Hausa/Fulani who inhabit the North are on the other hand Moslem
and endowed with Arabic Islamic culture. In fact since the Fulani conquest of the
Hausas in 1304, the Hausas have become decisively stamped with a Fulani
Character. Despite the dominance of Islam in the North and the preponderance of
Christianity in the South, the main issue that divides Nigerians is not religion but
the feeling that we are several nations or different peoples co-existing within the
boundaries of one State. Religion is an important factor but certainly not the
decisive factor separating the people of Nigeria. There are large Moslem adherents
in the South just as there are large followers of Christianity in the North. Despite
this factor, there is not much in common between a Yoruba Moslem and an Hausa
Moslem that will lead them to agree that Nigeria should be divided into two
religious states: one for Moslems and the other for Christians. This proposal which
was recently propagated by Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan Head of State arose from
total ignorance of the nature of Nigerian Society. Nigerians are different peoples
forcibly put together by the British for their Colonial convenience. The operative
and effective difference among the people is that they constitute several different
nations forced to coexist as one state by the British.
4

The main issue in Nigerian plural society is, therefore, not the religion of the
different groups. The crux of the division in Nigeria is the inter-ethnic struggle by
the different peoples that make up Nigeria for political hegemony. As a result of
this inter-ethnic struggle the establishment of a modem government over the
different peoples normally provokes an animated rivalry and competition in which
each group strives to protect and promote its group interest against those of other
groups. Each group gives primacy to its own group interest as against those of
other groups. The result has been that relations between the groups came to be
marked by mutual antagonism and hostility enkindled and fuelled by jealousy
distrust and fear of domination.3
The society is, therefore, characterized by deep and fundamental cultural
differences, the mutual distrust and fear of domination, which make it impossible
for Nigerians to be ruled under one unitary government. There cannot be peace at
any moment if people characterized by such deep and fundamental cultural
differences have to compete for every activity under the roof of one government.
What form of governmental organization is suitable for ruling a heterogeneous
people like the people of Nigeria? In his book POLITICS IN WEST AFRICA
Professor Arthur Lewis made an interesting analysis of the nature of politics in a
plural society. He came to the conclusion that such plural societies have very wide
geographical differences and can live together at peace only in a Federal
framework. This is because such a society needs to give its provinces the
opportunity to look after their own affairs if they are to be content with the political
union4
In his interesting book PATH TO NIGERIAN FREEDOM published in 1947,
Chief Obafemi Awolowo a foremost Nigerian nationalist embraced the Federal
model as the best option for Nigeria.
He made a proposal5 for the creation of ten ethnic-oriented regions for the main
ethnic groups in Nigeria within the framework of a Nigerian Federation. The ten
ethnic regions are: Fulani, Edo, Hausa, Ibibio, Igbo, Ijaw, Kanuri, Nupe, Tiv and
Yoruba. These ten different nationalities, in his opinion, should be recognized
more or less as full fledged nations in their own rights within the framewaork of a
federation of Nigeria. This proposal is consistent with Chief Awolowos overall
view that Nigeria was not a nation but a mere geographical expression. According
to him there are no Nigerians in the same sense as there are English, Welsh,
5

or French. According to Obafemi Awolowo Nigeria was merely a distinctive

appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from
those who do not. He expressed doubts about the potential abilities of various
national groups within Nigeria to embrace Western culture. At the time that he was
writing the Yorubas were taking the lead followed by the Igbo in embracing
Western education. The Hausa Fulani were then lagging behind. The Chief also
pointed to the religious differences between the North which was predominantly
Muslem and the South which was predominantly Christian. He was of the view
that this and other diversities were best accommodated in a Federal constitution.
It was of paramount importance in Chief Awolowos view that each of the ten
groups, no matter its size, should have its own autonomy, its own region and its
own House of Assembly. Chief Awolowo was enthusiastic about the Swiss Federal
model for a country consisting of three strong races: Germans, French and Italians.
He cited copiously the examples of some Federal models such as the Soviet Union,
Canada and Switzerland. But it was the Swiss model that he eugolized as the most
democratic in the world since it gives complete autonomy to every racial group.6
What did Obafemi Awolowo find interesting in the Swiss Constitution that
influenced his thoughts in the organization of the government of the heterogenous
peoples of Nigerian. He was enthused by the doctrines of power sharing and
autonomy which dominate the Swiss Constitution as the basis for the organization
of the government of the three formidable races who live in that country. The
Swiss Federal model is described by constitutional lawyers as a consociation or
power sharing democracy.
It is characterized by four major characteristics: 7
a) Participation of the representative of all racial groups in the government of the
country;
b) High degree of autonomy for each racial group.
c) Proportionality; (ie corresponding degree of representation for every group in
the decision making process or the executive), and
d) Minority veto.
Participation and autonomy principles form the taproots on which the theory of
power sharing in a consociation are founded.8 In his magnus opus THOUGHTS
ON NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION published in 1966. Obafemi Awolowo pointed
out again that the factors which decided the makers of the Swiss Constitution in
6

favour of Federalism were divergence of nationality, geographic separateness and

linguistic differences.9
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe a former President of Nigeria and also another foremost
Nigerian nationalist was a late convert to the federal model. Originally he wanted a
Unitary State for Nigeria, subsequently Zik made a volteface. In 1942, he joined
the West African Students Union in demanding the Federation of colonial Nigeria
and the right of Nigerians to self rule10. But it is at this point that his agreement
with Obafemi Awolowo ends.
In other to properly assess Dr. Azikiwe, it must be pointed out that he was a panNigerian and a pan-African ideologue who took for granted the existence of a
nation called Nigeria. In his book Political Blueprint of Nigeria published in
1943, Dr. Azikiwe was concerned about two things. The first was the issue of
independence for Nigeria. The second was a programme to prepare Nigerians to
take over from the British. The main thrust of his political agenda was, therefore
Nigerianizing the Nigerian Nation where loyalties to the nation should transcend
loyalties to the respective ethnic groups making up the state. While Chief
Awolowo was preoccupied with the creation of States based on ethnic groups, Dr.
Azikiwe advocated a commonwealth of Nigeria not based on ethnic groups. His
commonwealth of Nigeria was to be a federation divided into eight non-ethnic
protectorates or states created purely for administrative purposes. These were to
consist of the:
(1) Northern Protectorate (Katsina, Kano and Zaria)
(2) Northwestern Protectorate (Sokoto, Niger, Ilorri);
(3) Northeastern Protectorate (Bornu, Bauchi, Adamawa);
(4) Central Protectorate (Kabba, Kebbi and Plateau);
(5) Southern protectorate (Warri, Benin, Onitsha and Owerri);
(6) Southwest Protectorate (Ondo, Ijebu, Abeokuta Oyo and Lagos);
(7)Southeast Protectorate (Calabar and Ogoja);
(8) South Cameroons.11
The main objective behind Dr. Azikiwes proposed administrative framework was
the necessity of allowing Africans more participation in their political affairs.
While Obafemi Awolowo wanted regional autonomy as the foundation for a
national take off, Dr. Azikiwe believed that autonomy can be achieved through the
process of Nigerianization. Accoding to him, the first stage of the Nigerianization
process should facilitate training as a preparatory step for take over and assuming
responsibility. In the second stage, Dr. Azikiwe envisaged that Nigerians should
7

be in a position to be free to make mistakes and adapt themselves to the new life,
with non-Nigerians helping them, in an advisory capacity.12 Also included in Dr.
Azikiwes blueprint was the call for the Nigerianization of the Civil Service, the
diplomatic service, the armed forces, the administrative services and the
democratization of municipal administration.
Dr. Azikiwe unlike Obafemi Awolowo did not consider the plural character of
Nigeria as a major political impediment. In fact Obafemi Awolowo and Alhaji
Ahmedu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto, were more realistic on this matter. In this
regard the two men differed from other idealistic members of the Nigerian political
elite. The latter underestimated the power of ethnic loyalties and regional
diversities by taking for granted the existence of the Nigerian Nation. This high
falutin political idealism contrasted sharply with the earthy realism of both
Obafemi Awolowo and the Sarduana. At all stages in the evolution of the Nigerian
project both gentlemen continued to harp on the accommodation of Nigerian
regional differences. In fact oral tradition has it that in the mid-1960s Dr. Azikiwe
met with Ahmadu Bello and said let us forget our differences. to which
Ahmadu Bello replied No let us understand our differences. I am a Muslim and a
Northerner. You are a Christain and an Easterner. By understanding our
differences we can build unity in our country 13
In retrospect, particularly looking back to the development of Nigeria in the last
ninety-six years, we have come reluctantly to agree with Nwabueze that so long
as we try to keep a proper balance, ethnicism is a fact of life with which we must
come to terms, and to try to harness to better advantage as the foundation of
national unity in a multiethnic society. National loyalty in such a society can only
be built on top of ethnic loyalty; it cannot stand or survive hanging in the air
without a foundation of ethnic loyalty.14
The following conclusions emerge from our study of the nature of our plural
society. The Nigerian plural society is made up of over 300 ethnic groups who
speak diverse languages and, are geographically separated. The groups have
divergent character and cultures. These differences have been compounded by
disparities in education, economic advancement and the unequal impact of the
modernizing influence of Western civilization. It is clear that by its nature Nigeria
is a federal society made up of not one people but several peoples. Accordingly,
the organization of governmental powers for the administration of our extensive
territory and our diverse peoples must be through the vehicle of a federation. The
genius of federalism is that it enables each component group or state to govern
8

itself in matters of local or regional concern. In particular, it is able to do so

without any interference from any of the other groups. In the process, matters
which are of common interest to all the groups are left to be managed centrally by
the Federal Government while those which are of both local and national concern
can be are administered concurrently by both the regions and the Federal
authority. By this arrangement according to Nwabueze the differing interests and
circumstances of the component groups are accommodated while at the same time
securing the peace and stability of the country and its survival against the forces of
division and conflict inherent in the heterogenous nature of the society.15
It is interesting to note that our founding fathers accepted the Federal model even
though they tended to interprete the concept from fundamentally opposing
standpoints. Nnamdi Azikiwe regarded the Federal arrangement as an
administrative matter and as a platform from which his Nigerianized Nigerians will
give loyalties to the nation that transcended their ethnic groups. Obafemi Awolowo
and the Sarduana of Sokoto could not go along with such high falutin and
unrealistic ideas. While Awolowo championed the vigorous autonomy of ethnic
based regions the Sarduana agreed with the concept of Federalism so long as the
territorial integrity of the North as a region within the Federation remained intact.
By this stand, he wanted to ensure the hegemonial domination of his region over
our national affairs. These attitudes of our founding fathers helped to shape the
balance of power in the Federation before and immediately after our independence.
Dr. Azikiwe refused to create the COR State out of the then Eastern Nigeria. The
Sarduana adamantly turned down the case for a Middle Belt State out of Northern
Region of Nigeria. Only Obafemi Awolowo conceded the creation of the Mid-west
State out of the then Western Region of Nigeria.

3. WHAT IS A FEDERATION? HOW DO WE DEFINE OR

CONCEPTUALIZE FEDERALISM? IS NIGERIA A
FEDERATION?
There is no agreement among writers on the definition of Federalism. 16 According
to Adele Jinadu Federalism like democracy, freedom and revolution, is an
ambiguous term having no clear or universally acceptable meaning. Furthermore,
he correctly observes that a related problem is that, in the academic study of
Federalism, the distinction between defining and accompanying characteristics is
often neglected. More often than not, the accompanying characteristics of a
federal system of government are raised to the status of its defining
9

characteristics, so that when such characteristics are discovered in systems said to

be non-federal, there is then very little to distinguish a federal from a non-federal
system of government17. Fundamentally, it is clear that Federalism as a political
concept represents a compromise between the need for unity and diversity of a
people divided by ethnicity, race, culture and located in separate geographical
locations within one State.
In formulating the characteristics of Federalism, writers offer two different
approaches. There is the sociological school represented by people such as
William Livingston18 and the legal school of thought represented by people like
K. C. Wheare19 and Professor B. O. Nwabueze19.
From the sociological perspective, Livingston 20 maintains that for a federal
arrangement there must exist a federal society. A federal society, in his view, is
one with a plurality of ethnic groups with different historical, cultural, and
linguistic backgrounds but in which each ethnic group occupies a marked and
distinct geographical location from the others. In Livingstons view, the federal
society derives from the cleavages between the diversified groups. It is the
political economic and social forces among these geographically grouped
diversities that create the centrepetal and centrifugal forces that form the basis of a
federal society. The essence of federalism lies not in the constitutional or
institutional structure but in the society itself. A Federal Constitution which is a
legal document must, therefore, be distinguished from a federal society. In his
view, it is the federal society that gives birth to the constitution. The Federal
Constitution is an arrangement incorporating federal principles such as division
of powers, while the federal society is one with cleavages which are patterned
along geographical lines. Livingston accepts that the social diversities which
originally necessitated the creation of a federal arrangement are constantly in a
state of flux. The legal constitution, he points out, affects and is affected by the
societal diversities. Livingston gives a dynamic interpretation of the interplay of
political social and economic forces in a federal society. The difficulty with his
approach as Dare has clearly pointed out is that it is vague on which of these
factors are requisite or necessary conditions for the formation of a federation.
Besides, the definition of a federal system by Livingston is so broad that all
societies with division of powers can find a niche in the classification.21
For a definition of the legal nature of federations, the locus classicus is provided
by K.C. Wheare in his famous book, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. According to
Wheare:
10

By the federal principles I mean the method of dividing powers so the general
and regional governments are each within a sphere coordinated and
independent.22
The federal principles in Wheares view would include the following
characteristics:
a) A division of powers in a country among different levels of Government;
b) A written constitution enthrenching this division so that the Constitution
cannot be amended unilaterally by any one Government acting alone to the
exclusion of the other;
c) Each government is coordinate and independent of the other level of
government with regards to their respective functions;
d) In the event of a dispute between the federal and state government as to the
extent of their powers some independent body other than the state or federal
government will be authorized by the constitution to adjudicate on the dispute;
e) Each level of Government must have sufficient independent financial resources
to liquidate its constitutional functions. In Wheares view, financial
subordination makes an end of Federalism.23
Wheares formulation is noted for its rigidity and when strictly applied will
exclude all known federations. The degree of financial autonomy demanded in
a federation by Wheare is virtually not maintainable given the shifting character
of financial relations in a federation. To require strict adherence to the
principles of coordinate power and independence of each level of government
in the performance of its constitutional functions is to render the doctrine of
Federalism unworkable. Besides, it runs counter to the modern doctrine of
cooperative federalism which makes States and Federal Governments to set up
inter-governmental machineries for developing Federal and State cooperation.
The sociological approach of Livingston and the legal approach of Wheare are
complimentary and not mutually exclusive. Each approach depicts an aspect of
Federalism from a separate disciplinary angle. The one approach does not
exclude the other and an integrated application of both approaches opens a new
dimension both to the formal and informal aspects of Federalism.
Overshadowing the foregoing approaches, is the definition proferred by the
famous Nigerian Constitutional lawyer, Professor B. O. Nwabueze in his
celebrated book Federalism in Nigeria under the Presidential Constitution 24
11

He defined Federalism as an arrangement whereby powers of government

within a country are shared between a national, country-wide government and a
number of regionalized i.e. (Territorially localized) governments in such a way
that each exists as a government separately and independently from the others,
operating directly on persons and property within its territorial area, with a will
of its own and its own apparatus for the conduct of its affairs, and with an
authority in some matters exclusive of all the others.25
Nwabuezes definition embodies some of the cardinal aspects of Wheares
definition. He holds to the doctrine of the autonomy of each government. He
differs, however, from Wheare in that while upholding the doctrine of the
autonomy of the separate levels of government, he treats the matter not as one
of ensuring complete autonomy between two competing sovereignties but as
one of ensuring a fair balance between the national and regional government.
Hear him while certain matters may be common or concurrent to both the
national and regional governments, and while either one may be permitted to
prevail over the other in such concurrent matters, there must be certain matters
over which each can operate to the exclusion of the other and without
interference or competition from it. And the exclusive area must be substantial
enough to give meaning and reality to the autonomous existence of each
government The sharing of power (between the national and the
regional governments) should be so weighted as to maintain a fair balance
between (the two) . Federalism presupposes that the national and
regional governments should stand to each other in a relation of meaningful
independence resting upon a balanced division of powers and resources. Each
must have powers and resources sufficient to support the structure of a
functioning government able to stand on its own against the other ..
Federalism accommodates a certain amount of inequality in powers and in
resources between the national and regional governments, so long as any
preponderance in favour of one is not such as to reduce the other relatively to
virtual impotence.26
Applying the foregoing principles we come to the following conclusions. In the
first place, Nigeria is par excellence a plural society from the sociological
viewpoint of Livingston. There are many ethnic groups in our vast territory. It is
estimated that there are about three hundred of them in Nigeria. The federal
society of Nigeria will be derived from the balance of the centrepetal and
centrifugal forces created by the cleavages among these diversified groups.

12

From the legal viewpoint, however, the matter is very clear. It is true that by
virtue of Section 2(2) of the 1999 Constitution, Nigeria is proclaimed a
Federation consisting of thirty-six states and a Federal Capital Territory. This
provision has to be interpreted in two totally different circumstances. Under a
democratic political dispensation, there can hardly be any doubt that Nigeria
qualifies as a Federation. In the first place, the Constitution is written. It clearly
divides power and functions between the Federal Government and the State
Government with each level of government having an exclusive area of
competence substantial enough to give meaning and reality to the autonomous
existence of each government. Besides, neither the Federal Government nor the
State Government can unilaterally amend the 1999 Constitution. Moreover,
under the 1999 Constitution, each level of government is elected directly by the
people and no level of government has the power to appoint the other. The
effect is to ensure a fair balance in the autonomous existence of each
government.
Under a Military Government, however, different considerations apply.
Normally what the military does is to suspend or modify parts of the
constitution in order to enable them to superimpose the military hierarchical
structure on the national political system. The equivalent section 2(2) of the
Constitution is not usually suspended under a military regime. The effect of this
abnormal situation is that in a military dispensation Nigeria is only nominally a
de jure federation. In political reality, however, the superimposition of the
military heirachy transforms Nigeria into a de facto unitary state.
The State Governments no more have any autonomous discretion on any matter
within their respective territorial area since the Federal Military Government
can legally override State Governments in all matters. Besides, the Military
Administrators in each state are appointed by the Central Government. The
State Commissioners, Director Generals, Sole Administrators of Local
Governments in a State and the Local Government Councilors must first of all
be cleared with the Federal Government before being appointed by the Military
Administrators of each state. In fact, under a Military dispensation, the
autonomy of state governments disappear. The States become mere appendages
or political vassals of the Federal Government. The development of Nigerian
federalism is usually distorted under a military regime. The irony is that despite
the open contradictions the Nigerian Military Governments continue to parade
itself as a Federal Military Government. Under a military dispensation, there is
no balance of power prevailing between the Federal Government and the States
13

Government. The Federation becomes totally unbalanced and is transformed

into a de facto unitary State under the sole control and authority of Federal
Military Government.

4. THE STRUCTURE FOR A BALANCED FEDERAL

REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFORMAL FEDERATION
1900-1946
Even before the territory which was to become Nigeria became a country and a
formal Federation, it was informally ruled and administered as a Federation by its
British Colonizers between 1900 and 1946. The character of this informal
Federation created and laid the foundation for the dichotomy between North and
South. Ever since that time, this dichotomous division has impeded political
development in Nigeria by subjecting every important national action to a NorthSouth political balancing. Before 1900, Northern Nigeria was administered by the
Royal Niger Company. The colony and the Protectorate of Lagos including its
Yoruba hinterland was under the British Colonial office. The whole of the Bights
of Benin and Biafra including their hinterlands were under the Niger Coast
Protectorate. By 1900 the three separate Protectorates were placed under the
colonial office. They remained three separate Protectorates until 1906 when the
Colony and Protectorate of Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate were
amalgamated as the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. What was to become
Nigeria was now administered as two separate Protectorates. In 1912, Sir,
Fredrick Lugard was appointed the local head of the two units, an appointment by
which the process of informal Federation was speeded up. 27 According to
Professor Afigbo throughout this period, the British saw Nigeria as a loose
Federation of two different cultural and administrative worlds. On the cultural
side, the south was, throughout the period, seen and characterized as pagan and
barbarous. As a result it was subjected to the sustained propaganda of the agents
of Western Christianity and Western Civilization. Within two decades or so, it
was dotted all over with schools and churches. Politically and administratively,
the South had a notorierity for indiscipline and unmanageability. 28 It was
subjected to the harsh realties of direct colonial rule.
The British were extremely fond of the situation they met in the Northern
Protectorate. They found the people remarkably pleasant. They did not want to
offend the religious sensibilities of the people. Most of the North were Moslems
14

and the British excluded the Christian Missionaries from penetrating the area with
their Churches and their Schools (excepting animist areas in Bauchi, Plateau,
Southern Zaria and Benue.29 In the North, the colonizers ruled the people
indirectly through their traditional rulers. In this way, the North was sheltered
from the harsh realities of colonial rule and subjugation. The policy of indirect
rule which was invented by Lord Lugard made the masses respectful and
subservient to their Chiefs and the Chief respectful and subservient to the colonial
overlord. It spared the North the contentiousness, rowdiness and litigiousness of
the South. It also made the North inward-looking and suspicious of the outsider
especially if he came from the South.30
The result was that the two component segments of this informal Federation
developed each with its own character.31 In the short period between 1900 and
the amalgamation under Lugard in 1914 according to I. F. Nicolson, the
administrations of North and South managed to develop strikingly different
patterns so different that they seemed more like the products of the influence of
different ruling powers than the offspring of the same Secretary of State, brought
up by the same Ministry, the Colonial Office.32
The dichotomous division of Nigeria between the North and the South gradually
began to affect the mental orientation of the people. The North looked down on
the South as uncivilized, pagan, undisciplined, rowdy and nakedly materialistic.
The South returned this contempt with compliments regarding the North as
feudalistic, conservative, uneducated (in the Western sense and, therefore,
illiterate) and as the pliant tools of the imperial master.33 The division and social
contempt which was engendered by the developing resentment and prejudice
between the North and the South finally exploded into the open over Enahoros
motion for self-government which was rejected by the North and supported by the
South. The event ended up in the Kano riots of 1954 which was a bloody NorthSouth confrontation. The North/South orientation once planted by the colonialists,
has survived as a major factor in any balancing of power in the Federal Republic
of Nigeria. It has always been a factor in every electoral contest for Prime minister
or for President of Nigeria. It played a role in the state creation exercises of 1967,
1976, 1987 and 1991. In the 1993 states creation exercise, however, a conscious
effort was made to eliminate the North/south balance by the government of
General Sani Abacha. The government in creating a 36 state structure sought to
balance the new states on Abachas newly proclaimed six-geopolitical zones
rather than on the North and the South.
15

Writing in 1968 several years after the creation of the North-South dichotomy,
Chief Awolowo lamented that:
In all honesty .. British rule was immeasurably baneful to Nigeria and
Nigerians. There are four grounds for making this assertion:
i) The closure of the North to Christian Missionary influences,
ii) The fossilization of political institutions in the North under the aegis of indirect
rule.
iii) The treatment of the North and the South as two distinct political and
administrative units for all practical purposes, and the inflexible maintenance of
disparate standards in them,
iv) British manoeuvres immediately before and in 1959 to place the control of the
Federal Government in Northern hands, in order, thereby, according to them, to
ensure the unity and stability of the country after independence.34

5. THE STRUCTURE FOR A BALANCED FEDERAL

REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
THE PERIOD OF FORMAL FEDERATION FIRST PHASE
1946-65
The division of Nigeria into North and South was not the only contribution of
Britain to the balancing of power in the Federation of Nigeria. On grounds of
administrative convenience, it was decided in 1939 to divide the Southern
Provinces into two namely: East and West. With this administrative
reorganization which left the North totally untouched, Nigeria moved from a
dualistic to a tripartite balance of power. Each of the three administrative units
was founded on a major ethnic group. Northern Nigeria emerged as the home of
the Hausa-Fulani ethnic nationality, the Western Province (of the South) as the
land of Yoruba culture while the Eastern provinces were given a predominantly
Igbo image. Whether or not these stereo-types corresponded with the cultural
reality, they coincided with the demographic reality.35
The Richards Constitution in 1946 and the subsequent Macpherson Constitution
in 1951 consolidated the tripartite basis of national power and Nigerian
Federalism. One effect of these developments was the superimposition on the old
duality of a new and no less dangerous trinity the Hausa-Fulani, the Igbo and the
Yoruba as the only ethnic nationalities worthy of consideration in the emerging
Nigerian political scene A mention of the problem posed by the Hausa16

Fulani, the Yoruba and the Igbo was usually believed to exhaust the problem of
Nigerian Colonial administration . (The British) were concerned with
the major tribes). The other minor ethnic nationalities might as well not exist. As
far as the British were concerned, it was largely the inter-relationship of these
three major ethnic nationalities that constituted Nigerian politics. The whole
elaborate facade of constitution-making from 1946 to 1958 was an attempt to
work out a stable Federal balance between the three regions or to put it more
starkly, between the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and the Igbo. 36
The events of this period had the following impact on the political structure of
Nigeria. On the national level, it created a tripartite conflict between the three
major groups.37 The politics of this phase became the politics of three major
ethnic groups, their parties and their leaders fuelled from time to time by the
unresolved conflict between North and South for the hegemonic control of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria. The three major parties and their leaders reflected the
three main ethnic groups as follows:
Party
1) Northern Peoples
Congress

Leader
Ahmadu Bello
(Fulani)

Ethnic Control
Hausa-Fulani
dominated

2) National Convention
of Nigerian Citizens

Nnamdi Azikiwe
(Igbo)

Igbo dominated

3) Action Group
(Yoruba)

Obafemi Awolowo

Yoruba dominated

At the State level, the minorities were excluded from the structure of politics. This
exclusion produced a group who were disenchanted and determined to overthrow
the oppressive political structure. From now on the regional minorities began to
agitate for state creation as the only basis for realizing their political selfdetermination and overthrowing the obnoxious tripartite national balance of
power. At the national level, the regionalization of power, and the ethnicisation of
politics meant that the struggle for ethnic hegemony was destined to become the
preponderant national agenda. Under this agenda, each region had a major tribe
as its central political sun with the regional minorities revolving around that
central sun in a political solar system whereby they became peripheral satellite
underdogs. Their only major political option was to seek the alliance of other
major ethnic groups outside their own region and play that major ethnic group
17

against their own regional major ethnic group in an acrobatic balancing act to find
a place for themselves in Nigerias ethnicized political system.

6. THE STRUGGLE FOR A BALANCED FEDERAL REPUBLIC

OF NIGERIA: THE PERIOD OF FORMAL FEDERATION
SECOND PHASE 1967 TO DATE
The overthrow of the Government of the First Republic by the Nigerian Army and
the emergence of General Gowon to power brought in a Government which was
determined to break up the three regions which had given the three major ethnic
groups so much control over our national affairs. It was under these circumstances
that Gowon used the civil war against Biafra as a pretext to precipitate a major
fundamental change in the Federal system by abolishing the three regions and
replacing them with 12 states. By his action, General Gowon rewrote the structure
of Nigerian politics. By his action our hitherto regional minorities now assumed a
frontline position in the national political structure. The action by General Gowon
for the first time in our national life expressed the obvious basic but hitherto
adamantly suppressed principle that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic state38 and is not
merely the exclusive property of three major ethnic groups. Under Gowon Nigeria
became the common property of all ethnic groups in Nigeria. The states of the
Nigerian Federation have since been increased to 19 in 1976, 21 in 1987, 30 in
1991 and to 36 in 1996. Does this mean that the federal system is now balanced?

7. AN OUTLINE OF THE PARAMETERS WHICH HAVE BEEN

EMPLOYED IN THE SEARCH FOR A BALANCED FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
There is a general consensus that a balanced federal system of government is
necessary in order to ensure unity of national purpose and harmony in the national
political system so that the country can move forward. From our historical survey,
it is clear that several parameters have been tried in order to ensure a balanced
Federal Republic of Nigeria. We shall set out these parameters in this paragraph
and analyze their effectiveness in the succeeding paragraphs. In the attempts to
ensure a balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria a lot of efforts were made to ensure
a fair balance in the territorial structure of the component units.
Equally important are the efforts which have been made to ensure a fair balance in
the distribution of states among the major ethnic groups inter se and between them
18

and the minority ethnic groups. Other efforts have been concentrated in order to
ensure that there is a fair balance in the distribution of powers between the federal
and state Governments. Numerous attempts have also been made in order to
establish a fair balance or equality between the Northern and the Southern States.
A peculiar Nigerian innovation is the invention of the doctrine of federal character
which when applied to our national institutions is to ensure there is no
predominance of persons from a few states or a few ethnic or other sectional
groups in control of any Nigerian government institutions or any of its agencies.
Another doctrine which has also been marshaled in aid of balancing our federal
structure is the doctrine of cooperative federalism. How has this doctrine been
applied in balancing the Federal Republic of Nigeria? The last and most important
parameter in balancing any federation is in the critical area of finance. This is in
the division of national revenue between the federal government and the state
governments. Despite many efforts to balance the division of our national revenue
between the federal government and the state governments, the latter still lack the
financial capability to stand on their own particularly in the current era of the
thirty-six-state structure. How effectively have the foregoing parameters been
employed in balancing our federal set up? Have they led us to a federation that is
truly balanced in all ramifications?
We shall now proceed with an analysis of the impact of these parameters on the
numerous battles to evolve a balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria.
At this state of our unfolding analysis one word of caution is necessary. This
relates to the question whether the balance in a federal system is a permanent and
a fixed matter or a relative question changing from time to time. There is no doubt
that balance of power or what has been called by scholars the federal spectrum
is a relative and a shifting matter varying from time to time. At times in the life of
a nation, the total desire may be to ensure more powers for the Federal
Government. At other times, for the same nation, it may be to ensure that the
centre of emphasis is on the States or the component units as distinct from the
Federal Government.
We have experienced this phenomenon in our national history. At independence,
the emphasis was on the powerful three regions under the overriding domination
of Northern Nigeria and a weak Federal Government. Since 1967, the emphasis
changed to an overpowerful central government and weak state governments
which are more or less at the beck and call of the Federal Government. We must
disabuse our minds of establishing a central imaginary line in the relationship
19

between the Federal and State Government as if the two governments were
standing on two points of total integration and no integration at all. Each federal
spectrum or balance of power is shaped by the total political, economic and social
forces operating at any given time for any given Federation.

8. BALANCE IN THE TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE.

The failure of the first Republic in 1966 was attributable to the structural defect in
the territorial balance of the Federation, the three and subsequently four regional
unfairly balanced structures, the state of tension created by the majority-minority
tribes structure in each region, the intimidating size of Northern Nigeria which
covered approximately 75% of the land area and 60% of the national population,
and the use by the North of its influence to dominate the Federal Government in
such a way that the latter looked like the political vassal of a regional government,
a situation that contributed according to Nwabueze, to deprive the Federal
Government of legitimacy in the eyes of Southerners as well as a capacity to give
effective leadership.39 According to Chuba Okadigbo, it meant that the Prime
Minister of Nigeria was led from behind by the Premier Northern Nigeria thereby
introducing the phenomenon of the led-leader40 syndrome in our national politics.
The 1967 State creation exercise which increased the States to 12 from four was
the most balanced effort in our national history to ensure a fair territorial structure.
Six states in the North and another six States in the South meant that the exercise
paid homage to the continuing relevance of the North-South balance in our
national political affairs. It also broke up the domineering position of Northern
Nigeria and the stranglehold of the three main ethnic groups in our national
political affairs. It liberated the minorities from the dominance of the three major
ethnic groups. They moved from the periphery to the frontline of the national
political structure through the creation of their own states by General Gowons
Federal Military Government. An era of multi-ethnicism as opposed to tripartite
ethnicism was inaugurated. Out of the 12 States, five were minority States while 7
belonged to the majority ethnic groups.
The balance established by the 1967 creation of States was reversed in the 1976
State creation exercise when seven more States were created increasing the total
number of States to 19. As between the major ethnic groups, the exercise was
totally unfair to the Igbos. Out of the 19 States, there were 5 Yoruba States (Oyo,
Ondo, Ogun, Lagos and Kwara), 5 Hausa-Fulani States (Sokoto, Kaduna,
20

Gongola, Bauchi and Kano) and only two Ibo States, Anambra and Imo. In the
process, the Federation became again totally unbalanced. According to Nwabueze,
the effect is particularly unwholesome since a State, rather than a recognized
social grouping, such as a tribe, is now used as the unit for the application of the
principle of Federal Character in top public service appointments, appointment of
ministers, revenue allocation, and representation in the Senate and in the
distribution of various kinds of government amenities. A situation in which the
Ibo States have two shares as against five each for the Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba
cannot make for peace and harmony in the country nor can it nurture in the Ibo
the feeling that they belong, and have equal rights with the others.41 The denial of
more States to the Igbo in the 1976 State creation exercise underpins the swing in
the orientation towards the issue of creation of States in Nigeria. Before 1976, the
agitation for the creation of States was more of a response to a minority problem.
Now it was clear that a majority ethnic group has suddenly become reclassified as
a minority in our national political affairs. The effect was to create disharmony
and instability.
In 1976 the State creation exercise was also unfair in the distribution of the States
between the majority tribes and the minority tribes. On demographic basis, the
minorities would have been entitled only to five States but they were given seven
States and the majority tribes received only 12 States. The population of the
majority tribes at the time according to the Irikife Panel on State Creation, was
39,023,670 as against 17,166,983 among the minority ones.42 Two more States
were created in 1987 (Katsina and Akwa-Ibom) bringing the total number of
States to 21. In order to correct the imbalance in the State creation exercise, 9
more State were created in 1991 thereby increasing the States in the Federation to
thirty. The present figure of the total number of States in the Federation is 36 since
six more states were created in 1996 following the report by the Mbanefo
Committee on State Creation.
The question that must be resolved is whether the Federation can carry the burden
of such a massive proliferation in its political and administrative structures. The
increase in the number of States is also paralleled by the massive increase in the
number of local Governments. There are now about 774 local Government units
in Nigeria. What does the thirty-six States structure mean in the context of the
territorial balance of the Federation? In the first place, the Government of General
Sani Abacha tried to do something new something which had never been done
before in the history of State creation in Nigeria. Ostensibly it disregarded the
issue of North-South balance and tried to create one state out of each of the six21

zones which had been accepted by that Federal Government for the rotation of key
national offices. In fact, in the submission which this writer made to the Mbanefo
Committee during its sitting at Enugu, the committee asked to disregard the
North-South balance in order to disentangle ourselves from a historical aberration
created by colonialism. It would appear that the committee heeded this advice. It
also accepted the writers suggestion that new States should be created on the
basis of the new six-geo-political zones. In the Federal Government response to
the Committee Report the principle of creation of States on the basis of the sixgeopolitical zones was accepted. What is not fair in the report is the distribution of
the States and the extra-ordinary high number of States which have the effect of
transforming State Governments into mere provincial administrations.
As between the majority ethnic groups, the 36 States structure appears to be unfair
to the majority ethnic groups who now have 20 States (Kaduna, Kano, Katsina,
Kebbi Jigawa, Sokoto, Zamfara, Gombe, Bauchi, Lagos, Oyo, Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo,
Oshun, Enugu, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi and Anambra) while the minority ethnic groups
have 16 State (Admawa, Borno, Taraba, Yobe, Benue, Kwara, Kogi, Niger,
Plateau, Nassarawa, Edo, Delta, Akwa-Ibom, Cross River, Rivers). If the 199143
census population figures released by the National Population Commission is
anything to go by the population of the minority groups stands at 33,497,781
while those of the majority ethnic groups stood at 55,494,439. If we break this
further down, we find that in the South, the minority tribes have six States (AkwaIbom, Bayelsa, Rivers, Cross River, Edo and Delta) for a population of
13,392,963 while the majority tribes have eleven States for a population of
28,230,020. Similar results occur in the North where the majority tribe has a
population of 27,264,419 with nine States (Sokoto, Jigawa, kano, Kaduna,
Katsina, Kebbi, Zamfara, Gombe and Bauchi) while the minority tribes have ten
States (Adamawa, Borno, Yobe, Tarabar, Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Niger, Plateau and
Nassarawa) with a population of 19,733,144. The figures disclose that the number
of States belonging to the minority ethnic groups is not reflected demographically.
This has made the territorial structure undemocratic and unbalanced. The
advantages of the 1996 thirty-six States structure are that it has satisfied the
aspiration of more groups, both minority and majority groups for selfdetermination, (such as Ekiti, Zamfara, Gombe, Ebonyi, Bayelsa and Nassarawa
States). It has allayed the fears of domination of one group by the other. It has
ensured equal access for more groups at the national level to political leadership.
Besides, it has brought government nearer to the people, ensured greater territorial
diffusion of economic and political powers, and brought about a possibility of
more even development at a greater speed.
22

We concede that as a result of the 36 state structure, that States are now nearer the
people than at anytime in the history of Nigeria. But what is nearer the people is
the mere apparatus and the symbol of power of a State Government not the
financial proximity to solve the problems of the people. The financial
impecuniousity of many States has destroyed the rationale for State creation.
Under the present situation, it is even difficult for most States to sustain the
apparatus and the symbolism of power of State Governments let alone to embark
on capital projects for the realization of the development of the new states. The
result is that we are saddled with unviable States which are not able to maintain
even the recurrent costs of State administration such as the payment of monthly
salaries. One vividly recalls the valedictory speech of Ex-Military Administrator
Agboneni after the expiration of his tenure as the Administrator of Cross River
State. Agboneni thanked everybody for helping his administration. He revealed
that his greatest achievement was to have been able to pay the salaries of the
workers of the State during his tenure.
There are serious grounds which make it imperative that we should review the
1996 thirty-six state structure. In the first place, it has created a dynamic and a
chaotic situation which will lead to the endless demands for new States which can
meet the obligations which cannot currently be satisfied within the existing thirtysix State structure. This means that the process of state creation in Nigeria is now
assuming the character of a bazaar a jamboree, a continous and infinite process
which has a beginning but no end. Secondly, the exercise has brought to the fore
the costs of running the Federal Government, the thirty-six States and the 774
local Governments. There is little doubt that the total cost of running these three
tiers of government will substantially impair the overall development capacity of
the federation.
In his interesting book, Face of a Nation,44 Dr. Zimako Zimako states that
Between 1999 and 2007, the salaries and allowances of public office holders
constituted an estimated sum of N5 trillion. In 1998 alone a total of N124 billion
was paid out as salaries and allowances to political office holders. In 2002, the
figure had risen to N493 billion, principally due to the rise in number of
appointees and a proportional increase in their salaries and allowances. 45 By
2008 the salaries and allowances of public office holders had risen to the
astronomical figure of N2.69 trillion per annum. This breaks down as follows:

23

Government
Federal
States
Local Governments

Total Expenditure
N1.736 trillion
N360 billion
N593 billion

The greatest tragedy revealed by the foregoing scandalous waste of resources is

that since the advent of democracy, particularly since 1999 over 70% of the
budget is channeled towards the payment of the salaries of political officeholders,
their aides and other special political appointees 46. If 70% of the budget in Nigeria
is dedicated to the welfare of the political appointees who themselves have not
done much to improve the standard of living of the people they are supposed to
serve, then the truth is suddenly emerging why Nigeria continues to languish in
poverty and underdevelopment. Between 1970 and 2001 Nigeria has earned over
$300 billion US Dollars from oil. This money has not been invested in visible
transformative investments because they were used primarily to sustain the
welfare that of our public officers. Ahmed Abdulahi has warned on the danger of
designing a system of government which cannot be sustained by a countrys
resources. And we totally agree with him that it is a recipe for disaster to devote
an unduly large proportion of a countrys resources to a non-productive large
institution like Government at the expense of the welfare of the majority of the
citizens and the overall economic development of the country.47
Thirdly under the present thirty-six state structure, the states are too small in
population and in the ability to generate internal revenue. Even if we were to
reduce the awesome powers of the Federal Government, it will not be possible to
transfer those powers from the Federal Government to these small and financially
fragile states. According to Nwabueze 48 Although it may readily be agreed that
the Federal Government should be divested of a considerable part of its powers
under the 1999 Constitution, most of the present 36 States are in terms of
population and the ability to generate their own internal revenue too small to carry
any but limited powers. Fourthly, the effect of the thirty-six States structure is to
make the Federal Government so powerful that it can even override the combined
strength of the thirty-six States Governments put together. Gradual erosion of the
strength of State Governments has diminished the prospects of Federalism in
Nigeria and converted our federal government into a de facto Unitary State. This
has brought our State Governments down to the level of provincial
administrations which are no longer partners in a viable and balanced federal
system. Our states have become like docile passengers rather than active codrivers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Fifthly, the present multiplicity of
24

States by overcentralizing the dominance of the Federal Government at the

expense of the State and local Governments has refueled the explosive interethnic struggle for the control of the Federal Government. The more attractive the
powers of the Federal Government, the more fierce the inter-ethnic struggle for
the control of the Federal Government of Nigeria and the office of the Presidency.
This struggle generates national political instability which has been the recurrent
bane of Nigeria since we became a federation. Besides, it has contributed to our
incapacity to produce a nationally acceptable leader through the ballot box. As
long as this struggle persists, there will continue to be political deadlocks in the
electoral process. Such deadlocks create political instability which facilitate
continued military interventions in our political system.
What then must be done to salvage the situation? Speaking on May 1, 1997 at
Ibadan during the yearly lecture of the House of Lords on The Changing Faces
of Nigerian Federalism: Which Way Forward, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, an Ex-Vice
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proposed that the six geo-political
zones recognized by the General Abacha Provisional Ruling Council for the
purpose of rotating key national offices should be nurtured and transformed in
due course to full-fledged regions which will be federating units in a free united,
Federal Republic of Nigeria.49 This proposal is a reiteration of his earlier
proposal on the issue published in 1993. Ekwuemes proposal means the
regrouping of the present thirty-six States within the present six zones. Each zone
will then constitute a region of the Federation. Each region will be made up of the
States located within each of the six respective geo-political zones but no region
should comprise more than eight States 50. In Nwabuezes view, the acceptability
of the Ekwueme plan would depend on three main factors. The first is whether or
not the size of the federating units are strong enough to make for a viable and
stable federation. We agree with him that six units could be viable and stable
depending on the financial formula such units will maintain for sharing our
national revenue with the Federal Government. We agree with Ekwuemes view
that given the overcentralization of the Federal Government, which has taken over
some of the exclusive functions hitherto performed by States Governments as well
as functions on the concurrent list, that the new six regions should derive their
powers partly from those currently wielded by the Federation and partly from
those wielded by the States 51. Nwabueze even goes further to propose that more
powers should be lodged in the regions than in the centre or in the old existing
States. The second factor is the fate and position of the existing state Governments
in the new plan. Ekwueme would like to retain the existing States and draw
regional constitutions which will reflect the peculiarities of the regions 52.
25

Again, he wants the constituent states of each region to be recognized by the

Federal Government. The nature of this recognition is vague. If it means that we
shall have a double Federation (the centre and the regions on the one hand and the
regions and the states on the other), it will lead to an unacceptable situation. In our
opinion the States which comprise each region should be abolished to make way
for the new six regions notwithstanding that this may not go down easily with
those who fought gallantly for their creation. This is necessary in order to cut
down the administrative costs. Otherwise we shall be saddled with an unwieldy
arrangement made up of a Federal Government, six regional government, thirtysix state governments and 774 local governments. Under such a cumbersome
arrangement, the total resources of Nigeria will virtually be used exclusively to
maintain the welfare of public officers. We should not merely superimpose six
regional centres of power on the existing thirty-six State Governments. This will
create confusion. It is administratively expensive. Politically, if such a proposal
ever sees the light day we can begin to sing the nunc dimitis of the Federation of
Nigeria. We propose not only the abolition of the 36 states, we also advocate for
the radical reduction of the number of our local governments.
In order to curtail administrative cost and to encourage economics of scale, large
regions and in order also to attract better qualified people for leadership, the local
Government system will be re-organized so as to bring down the number from
774 to between 150 and 250 units. Ideally, the size of a local Government should
be more or less the size of the existing Senatorial Zones. This will provide for
viable centres of Local Government, broaden the catchment area for leadership,
save administrative costs and provide a bigger territorial area for operation of
Local Governments with economies of scale and the potential of vastly improved
economic performance.
Subject to the above qualifications, we agree with a six zone territorial structure
for a Federation based on the six geo-political zones.

9. A BALANCED POWER STRUCTURE

We have seen how the creation of thirty-six states has created an unbalanced
territorial structure for the federation. Pari-passu with this imbalance has been the
enlargement of the powers of the Federal Government to the detriment of the
states. What is most offensive about this increase in the powers of the Federal
Government is that it runs counter to normal division of functions in a Federation,
whereby local matters are left to the states while common and national matters are
26

left for the centre. The situation is compounded by the fact that even if we were to
divest the Federal Government of these powers we cannot return them to the
present 36 states. They are too weak to effectively exercise these powers: A return
of the power transferred to the Federal Government can only be effected when we
dismantle the present 36 state structure and create the six new regions we are
advocating. The balance of power in our federation requires the constant
balancing of the conflicting objectives of national unity, ethnic autonomy and
national stability. Our past history shows that the stronger the power vested in our
Federal Government, the greater the intensity of the competition for its control,
with a consequential undermining of national unity and stability53 It is, therefore,
necessary to decisively deal with the over centralization of powers in the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Professor Nwabueze has listed
five main areas in which the 1999 Constitution has drastically altered the power
structure of the federation in favour of the federal Government. These according
to him54 are as follows:
First, 16 matters, hitherto concurrent to both federal and regional governments,
are now made exclusive to the Federal Government, Viz arms, ammunition and
explosives; bankruptcy and insolvency; census; commercial and industrial
monopolies, combines and trusts; drugs and poisons; fingerprints, identification
and criminal records; labour (i.e., conditions of labour, industrial relations, trade
unions and welfare of labour); prisons; professional occupations as may be
designated by the National Assembly; quarantine; registration of business names,
regulation of tourist industry; traffic on federal trunk roads; public holidays;
regulation of political parties; and service and execution in a state of civil and
criminal processes, judgments, decrees, orders and other decisions of any court of
law outside Nigeria or any court of law in Nigeria other than a court of law
established by the legislature of a state. The complete exclusion of a State
Government from all of these areas is a significant change indeed, for it takes
away completely the initiative which, in the past, the regions undertook in some of
these matters.
Secondly, not only is the scope of concurrent matters now severely restricted by
the transfer of roughly 50 per cent of them to the exclusive competence of the
Federal Government, but also some of the matters still formally listed as such are
actually dealt with in such a way as to make them exclusive to the Federal
Government to a very large extent. For example, a State Governments power
over higher education is now restricted to merely making law for the
establishment of an institution for purposes of university, professional or
27

technological education. Subject to this, the whole field of higher education the
regulation of admissions and standards, the question of free education at that level,
etc is now exclusive to the Federal Government. While public safety and public
order remain a concurrent matter, the principal instrument for maintaining and
securing them the police force and the armed forces that are centralized in the
Federal Government without the concession made to the regional governments by
the 1960/63 constitutions to establish local police forces on a provincial basis.
Thirdly, the Federal power over taxation of the income and profit of individuals is
now, as in the case company taxation, plenary and not, as under the 1993
Constitution, limited to purposes specifically prescribed in the Constitution such
as the securing of uniform principles of taxation, etc. Even more important is the
plenitude of its exclusive power over trade and commerce, which is not confined
to trade and commerce with foreign countries and between the States as under the
1963 Constitution, but extends to trade and commerce within s State.
The Federal power over trade and commerce is also significantly enhanced by the
power given to the national Assembly (a) to declare that any economic activities
are to be managed or operated by the Federal Government to the exclusion of
everybody else, including individuals (S. 16(4)); (b) to set up a body to review
from time to time the ownership and control of business enterprises operating in
Nigeria. And to administer any law for the regulation of the ownership and control
of such enterprises (S. 16(3)). It is not clear whether an activity outside the
competence of the Federal Government can be so declared. It is not reasonable to
suppose that by this provision the Constitution intended that the National
Assembly should have power to alter, by a mere resolution of its members, such a
fundamental arrangement as the division of powers. An interpretation of this
provision, in order to be consistent with the division of powers and with procedure
for the amendment of the Constitution, must, therefore, limit its scope to activities
within the competence of the Federal Government.
Fourthly, Federal power is now extended to certain matters hitherto under
exclusive regional competence. Minimum standard at the primary and secondary
levels of education is now an exclusive matter for the Federal Government, so is
the election of a State Governor and the members of the State House of Assembly.
Land title is now largely exclusive to the Federal Government, for not only is the
Land Use Act 1978 entrenched in the constitution (s. 274(5)), but also its
provisions are to continue to have effect as Federal enactments and as if they
28

related to matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part 1 of the
second schedule to this Constitution.
Local Government too is no longer an exclusive state matter in its entirety.
Aspects of it registration of voters at Local elections, the procedure for such
elections, local Government finances and, arguably, the creation of new Local
Government areas are subjected to regulation and control by the Federal
Government.
Fifthly, the Federal Government is granted yet another new source of power by
the provision authorizing the National Assembly to establish and regulate
authorities to promote and enforce the observance throughout the country of
fundamental objectives and directive principles enshrined in the Constitution
(Exclusive Legislative List, item 57, second schedule).
By these vast accretions, Federal power now clearly predominates over state
power in their formal extent, there cannot now be any doubt that the balance of
power in the Federation is with the Federal Government. This is not of course to
say that the State Governments have become emasculated. Although the functions
transferred from them to the federal Government are considerable, the state
Governments are still left with quite large powers, covering such important
matters as primary and secondary education, health and medical care, agriculture,
housing, transportation, water supply, local government with certain
qualifications, town and country planning, chieftaincy and traditional customs
generally, general control of civil wrongs, etc. Professor Nwabueze has pondered
whether these vast accretions of power to the Federal Government at the expense
of the states have not again unbalanced the power structure in the other direction.
In his view the involvement of the Federal Government in the control of land
rights and Local Government seems to have upset the balance rather too much.
For land and Local Government are examples par excellence of matters of local
concern. Federal Government involvement in them offends, therefore, against the
rationale of the division of powers under Federalism, which requires that matters
of purely local concern should be controlled and regulated by the State
Governments. Then, there is the extension of Federal power to trade and
commerce within each state. If trade and commerce is interpreted to embrace all
commercial intercourses as well as non-commercial businesses like those of a
carpenter, bicycle repairer, roadside mechanic, etc, then the division of power
would have been almost completely abolished in the field of economic affairs.
Even when restricted to commercial intercourse, the extension of the power to
29

purely intra-state commercial activities or transactions, such as the buying and

selling of garri by villagers in a States local market, is difficult to reconcile with
true Federalism. To these extents, the power structure under the [1999]
Constitution may be said to be somewhat unbalanced.55 Arising from the
foregoing analysis Nwabueze recommended that these accretions of power to the
Federal Government should be taken away and handed to the Regional
Government. The entirety of the matters on the concurrent list should be
transferred to the Regional Governments. Those on the exclusive list should also
be looked at closely with a view to pruning them by the transfer of some of them
to the Regional or State Governments as may be appropriate and desirable.56

10. A BALANCED REVENUE ALLOCATION SYSTEM BETWEEN

THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
There cannot be any doubt as the Abayode Committee on Revenue Allocation
made it clear in 1977 that the States are now merely the fiscal vassals of the
Federal Government. The States virtually go cap in hand before a financially over
preponderant Federal Government. The financial hopelessness of the states is
reflected in the fact that state governments depend on federally collected revenue
for over 90 percent of their total resources. Their total share of this revenue only
represent about 25% of the total federally collected revenue. In view of this
hopeless financial predicament, States Governments are no longer the centres of
proactive economic and industrial development like they were in the first
Republic. Not only is their share of federally collected revenue which are paid into
a common financial pool known as the distributable pool from which all the three
tiers of government, Federal, State and local Governments are funded very poor,
they are constitutionally not entitled to the independent revenues which accrues to
the Federal Government by virtue of its constitutional functions. These revenues
have expanded out of proportion to the revenue which is shared out from the
distributable pool. In his famous Ibadan speech, Ekwueme stated that a large
chunk of revenue accrues to the Federal Government through the weekly auction
at the Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (AFEM), the now abolished
Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) and the Value Added Tax (VAT). He cited VAT,
PTF and AFEM as programmes which underlined the Federal Governments
desire to retain at the centre a disproportionate amount of national revenue. He
wondered why the Federal government threw away the Sales Tax Decree of 1986
which envisaged 80 percent revenue for the States and 20 percent revenue for the
centre for VAT which implemented the same law but with diminished proceeds
30

for the Centre, States and Local Governments on the basis of 35-35-30 per cents.
He pointed out that AFEM yielded N78 billion in 1995 and N128 billion in 1996
and was expected to yield N170 billion in 1997. Since the Federal Government
and the State had concurrent responsibility for health, food, water, road and
education, he wanted the abolished PTF fund to be shared between the Federal
Government and the State according to the quantity of petroleum consumption by
the different parts of the country which accounted for the contributions to the
fund. In view of the national imbalance in the financial relationship between the
Federal and State Governments, we believe that the matter must be total reviewed
in line with our proposal for a six zone structure and the restructuring of the
powers of the three tiers of government. Under our new structural balance of a
Federal Government with lesser powers, six strong regional government and 150
to 200 strong local governments, we want each tier of government to be endowed
with sufficient resources to enable it to function effectively. With the
implementation of these reforms, we should be able to say farewell to the era of
financially weak governments in Nigeria. At the same time we would have been
able to prune down the costs of running our governments to a rational, realistic
and manageable level. We can at the end of the day look up confidently to the
emergence of a new era in which our national resources can be well utilized for
transformative national development. Above all we would have closed down the
era of squandermania and parasitic public officers.

11. BALANCING
THE
APPLICATION OF
CHARACTER.

FEDERAL
SYSTEM
BY
THE
THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL

Perhaps, one of the most interesting innovations of Nigeria in the realm of

balancing a federal system in a plural society is in the invention of the principle of
Federal Character. The principle first used in a speech by General Murutala
Mohammed latter found expression in sections 14(3) and 14(4) and 277(i) of the
1999 Constitution. Section 14(3) applied the principle in the operation of the
Federal Government while Section 14(4) does that same for state and local
Governments. Section 277(1) defines the meaning of the principle. They provide
as follows:
14(3) The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its
agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to
reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and
also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no
31

predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional
groups in that government or in any of its agencies.
14(4) The composition of the Government of a State, a local government council,
or any of the agencies of such government or council, and the conduct of the
affairs of the government or council or such agencies shall be carried out in such
manner as to recognize the diversity of the people within its area of authority and
the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the
Federation.
Section 277(1) Federal character of Nigeria refers to the distinctive desire of the
peoples of Nigeria to promote national unity, foster national loyalty and give
every citizen of Nigeria a sense of belonging to the nation as expressed in
section14(3) and 14(4). These provisions are now incorporated in
sections of the 1999 Constitution.
The principle of Federal character is meant to promote national unity and to
ensure a sense of belonging in a plural and heterogeneous society such as ours. It
applies to elective positions in Federal, State, and Local Governments. In practice
the principle is also being applied to non-elective positions.
It is intended to ensure that no one group will dominate the government or any of
its agencies at the centre, state or local government. It is not meant just to ensure
participation of each group. The intention of the principle is to ensure that the
government is not subjected to domination by any one group or by a combination
of the same group. Domination is not matter of numbers but arises from the
control of key positions where vital decisions regarding policy, financial
disbursements, appointments, award of contracts etc are made; where, in short,
the business of governing takes place 57. It is the most essential position that
principle requires not to be dominated by any group. Such key positions must be
equitably distributed so that they are not cornered by any group. The use of the
state rather than the ethnic group as a basis for determining the application of the
doctrine has been criticized as a distortion of its underlying objective. States are
not part of our indigenous social organization, but, rather, artificial political
creations..58
In the draft Abacha 1995 Constitution (which has never been signed into law,) the
principle of Federal character was developed for application to elective offices at
the centre, the states and local governments. The idea is that at each of these levels
32

of Government there will be a rotation of the principal offices of State in

geographically defined zones so as to make every group have a feeling of
belonging. At the national level the key positions of President, Vice President,
Prime Minister, President of the Senate, Deputy President of the Senate, and
Speaker will be rotated in six zones, three in the North and another three in the
south. The zones are as follows:
North East: Adamawa, Taraba, Gombe, Bauchi, Yobe and Borno
North West:

Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Jigawa, Sokoto and Zamfara.

North Central:

Bebue, Kwara, Kogi Niger, Plateau and Nassarawa

South West:

Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and Ondo.

South South:

Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Rivers, Bayelsa, Edo and Delta.

South East:

Abia, Anambra, Enugu, Imo and Ebonyi.

For purposes of the election of State Government and Chairmen of local

government Councils, the States and local Government will be divided into three
zones respectively for the rotation of those offices in order to give a sense of
belonging to the various groups within each State or local Government as the case
may be.
In his ingenious characteristic manner, Nwabueze has charged that the doctrine
of federal character can hardly prevent the domination of the Presidency by one
group. Accordingly, he suggests that in the election of the President, State
Governors and Council Chairmen, no one ethnic group shall hold the office twice
when other groups qualified by a criterion or criteria prescribed by the
Constitution for the purpose have not held it.59
The Federal character principle applies not just to zone elective offices. It also
applies to ensure that anybody who is elected has National, State or Local
Government support through the application of the principle of geographical
spread in the country, State or Local Government.
The Federal character principle represents an ingenious home doctrine specifically
tailored to solve the problems of Nigerias plural society. If faithfully applied, it
33

may contribute to a balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria where all the

heterogeneous communities have a sense of belonging. The effect of its robust
application will be to suppress sectionalism so that the country can move forward
in unity and strength. But the principle has to be applied with care otherwise it
will destroy the principle of merit which is the driving force for change in todays
technological world. In fact some people including former President Babangida
are calling for its abolition since it obstructs the full development of the principle
of merit in our national affairs.
12. THE CONSOLIDATION OF A BALANCED FEDERATION THROUGH
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY:
THE DOCTRINE OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM.
The principle of a balanced Federation can also be realized through the
establishment of joint government machineries to ensure consultation and
cooperation between the Federal and States Governments in certain critical areas.
These joint government machineries are also regarded as vehicles for the
promotion of the new doctrine of cooperative federalism. For this purpose, we
make the following recommendations:
a) The Police
We should continue to have police force under the federal Government but there
must be a police council in which all State and the Federal Government should be
represented for the purpose of consultations on matters pertaining to the
organization and the administration of the police force.
Secondly, the present position where the Inspector-General is appointed and
removable by the President is unfair. It must be a mandatory Constitutional
requirement that the States should be consulted on the matter. This was the
position under the first Republic. A state must also have the right to legally
demand the removal of its Commissioner of Police.
Thirdly, the present position whereby the State Commissioner of Police is
appointed without reference to the State Governor jeopardizes the capacity of the
State Governors to act as the Chief Law and order officer of his State. The
implementation of the foregoing recommendations will lead to a more conducive
relationship in the relations of State Governors and their Police Commissioners.

34

b) The Armed Forces

The Armed Forces should continue to be under the exclusive control of the
Federal Government. The States and the Federal Governments should, however,
be represented in joint Councils were the States can be consulted on policy
questions relating to the organization and the administration of the Armed Forces.
The doctrine of Federal character should continue to apply both to the police and
Armed Forces. Recently the Nigerian Police has unilaterally abdicated the
continued application of the doctrine in the recruitment of its senior officers. An
important question that this raises is whether the police can do so without
embarking on a path of explicit law breaking. The police decision clearly reflects
the cleavage between the doctrines of merit and quota as encapsulated in the
doctrine of federal character.
c) National Economic Council, Council of State and National Population
Commission
The above bodies should continue to function in the manner set out under the
1999 Constitution since they act as organs providing forum for consultation and
participation by the State government with the Federal Government in the
performance of sensitive national functions.

13. CONCLUSION.
In the foregoing study, we have looked critically at the efforts to balance the
Federal Republic of Nigeria from colonial times to date. These efforts range from
the colonial establishment of the North-South balance, the tripartite ethnic
struggle for hegemony by the three major ethnic groups, the overthrow of that
hegemony by General Gowons twelve state structure and the subsequent increase
in the number of states in the Federation to 19, 21, 30 and 36. We analyzed the
consequences of these increases particularly their effects on the balance of the
territorial structure of the Federation, revenue allocation, and power structure. We
agreed with some amendments to Ekwuemes proposal for the creation of six
regional governments as the most desirable territorial structure for a balance
Federal Republic of Nigeria. We looked at selected institutional machinery for the
promotion harmony and political balance between the States and the Federal
Government in the Police, the Armed Forces and other Federal agencies such as
the National Economic Council, the Council of State etc. We reviewed the
Nigerian principle of Federal character and how it could help in providing unity
35

and harmony for elective and non-elective positions in a heterogeneous federal

society like Nigeria.
There is no doubt that a balanced Federal Republic of Nigeria is a condition sine
qua non to the emergence of Nigeria as a modern great nation. In fact, vision
20:2020 is not possible without the support of a united and balanced Federal
Republic of Nigeria. The North-South dichotomy, the tripartite ethnic struggle for
hegemony, the mentality of majority and minority ethnic groups, the continous
threat of marginalization and demerginalization hovering like permanent clouds of
darkness and retrogression over our 150 million people have impaired the
crystallization and fulfillment of the Nigerian dream of a strong and united black
nation capable of speaking not only on behalf of Africa but also on behalf of the
whole black world. After 50 years of imprisonment in inter-ethnic bondage the
time has arrived for Nigeria to wake up and shake off the ugly legacies of interethnic feuds. Our inter-ethnic cleavages have not promoted any ethnic group in
any decisive and significant way that is visible. On the contrary, our ethnic battles
have had the effect of paralyzing the commencement of our build up and
mobilization to graduate from poverty into a new prosperous world where we can
engage and participate in the economic and technological revolution that is taking
place in the world.
Certainly after 96 years, Nigeria is no longer a mere geographical expression. In
our battle to transform our fatherland, the time has come for us to battle as one
nation. What then must be done in order to ensure that the inter-ethnic problem
does not operate even fifty years after our independence to destroy our march
from the third world to the first world? It is here that we must look at the
Malaysian experience which has a striking resemblance to our own problem. It is
necessary to look at the experience because their own differences were deeper and
appeared more unmanageable than ours and yet they were able to overcome them.
If the Malaysians have been able to overcome their inter-racial battles for
supremacy, how can their experience help Nigeria to do the same thing?
Malaysia as a nation was born in 1957 crippled at birth with many handicaps
which threatened her survival as a nation. In fact, she was contemptuously viewed
by some as a lame duck or by others as a dead duck. Few people gave her a
chance of survival and as a result of her numerous problems she was consigned as
suitable only for the dustbin of history. Why did people look at the young
Malaysian State in this way? In the first place, the people were diverse and
divided into three racial groups Malays, Chinese and Indians. 60 percent of the
36

population were the indigenes who owned the land. These were made up of 52%
Malay, and 8% of other hill tribes. 40% of the population were made of
immigrants from China and India. Within this group, the Chinese constituted 30%
while the Indians were between 9 to 10 percent. Secondly, apart from these racial
and linguistic differences, the people were divided religiously and culturally. 50%
of the populations were Muslims others were Hindus and Buddhists. Culturally,
each race has a different historical destiny. The Chinese look towards China while
the Indians derived their cultural inspiration from India.
Thirdly, there were two geographical divisions. The indigenous people lived in the
rural areas while the Chinese lived in the urban areas. This is the first
geographical division. On top of this, the country was divided by the sea in a
manner which is exceptional. The East and West of Malaysia are separated by
more then one thousand miles of sea. Fourthly, the educational system was
partitioned on the three racial lines. There were Malay language school, Chinese
language schools and Indian language schools. Only 5% of the population went to
English language schools. Fifthly, the nation was occupationally divided. The
Malays were the fishermen and farmers. In the cities, they did the menial jobs
acting as waiters, drivers and gatemen. The Chinese, on the other hand, were the
businessmen, the bankers, the traders and the shopkeepers. Sixthly, on top of these
divisions the country was subjected to a civil war. While our own Nigerian civil
war lasted for three years from 1967 1970 that of Malaysia lasted for 45 years.
Besides, there was a racial element in that the Malaysian Communist Party which
launched the war that lasted from 1945 to 1989 were predominantly Chinese.
Besides, there were sporadic racial riots, the most serious of which took place in
1969. Above all, and to compound all the above sources of division, Malaysia
belonged to the most dangerous conflict ridden region of the world called South
East Asia. This region was at that time in danger of being overrun by the
communists at the height of the Vietnam conflict. Fueling the racial conflict in
Malaysia was the feeling of dispossession by the majority indigenous population
of Malaysia who feared that they had lost out economically in their own country.
In 1970, they owned only 1.9% of the modern economy of Malaysia yet they
constituted 60 per cent of the population. They were not endowed with the
resources of Nigeria. All they had was rubber which they took from Brazil. Later,
they took palm oil from Nigeria and are now leading producers and exporters of
palm oil in the world. They also had deposits of tin at that time but these are now
exhausted. Confronted by the impossibility of their situation, and their seemingly
interminable heterogeneous crisis the people of Malaysia resolved to take their
future into their own hands. Their first action was to adopt a law which cemented
37

their national divisions. This was the SEDITION LAW by which they settled the
five explosive issues in their political system. They agreed that henceforth the
citizenship of non-indigenes will no longer be subject to any further questions.
Secondly, nobody must challenge the special privileges of the Malay indigenous
community. Thirdly, the nine traditional rulers who were predominantly
indigenes, were to be accorded full recognition and not to be questioned or
ridiculed in any way. Fourthly, the official language of Malaysia will be Malay
but anybody can speak any language of his choice. Fifthly, Islam was chosen as
the official religion but no religion was adopted as the state religion.
The Sedition Act settled the inter-racial and communal strife and prepared the way
for the emergence of a powerful national consensus by the totality of the
population to develop Malaysia. Having resolved their social and political
contradictions, Malaysians proceeded to concentrate without any distraction on
their economy. In the words of Dr. Sopiee, a Malaysian expert, they pushed ahead
as follows: First, we put economics in command. Secondly, we put pragmatism
in control. Thirdly, we put sound economic policies in place, and fourthly, we
found for the first time in our history the Malaysian consensus. For the first time
in history, Malaysians are at peace. Malaysians were at one.60
In pursuit of sound economic policies they adopted core programmes which
involved the following principles. In the first place, they placed the private sector
as the engine of economic growth. Secondly, they proceeded to downsize the
public sector and withdraw government from economic production. Thirdly, they
brought in massive foreign investment. These economic policies were part of the
twenty-two part winning formula in which also was the policy of Malaysia
incorporated. For the last fifteen years, the execution of the foregoing policies
have reshaped and transformed the Malaysian nation and society. There is now
being created a Malaysian nation which has loyalties transcending those of the
three racial groups who make up the country. Malaysia is no longer a geographical
expression. Secondly, the economy is roaring as the fourth fastest developing
economy in the world (now galloping at the growth rate of 6.7%). Besides, there
has been economic restructuring which has improved the take of the Malay
indigenous population in the economy from the paltry 1.9% in 1970 to 20%
control of the total national economy in 1995. The per capita in come in 1957 was
217USD. In 1996, it had multiplied twenty times and now stands at 4,200 USD. In
1996, 51% of the populations were classified as absolutely poor. This was reduced
to9% in 1990 and vanished to zero in 2000. Satisfied with their performance in the
last fifteen years, the Malaysian have now launched in 1990 vision 2020.
38

As the economies of the Asian Tigers, whose countries also have internal plural
problems, are exploding, our own economy seems to be shrinking. This is in spite
of the fact that their national problems are sometimes bigger than ours. Yet, they
manage to resolve them and press ahead with their economic development. Can
we overcome our own differences and cross the bridge to worldwide prosperity
through a balanced federal Republic of Nigeria and the rigorous implementation
of vision 20:2020? When will the great people of Nigeria meet together and
emulate our Malaysian counterparts by adopting the Nigerian equivalent of our
own SEDITION LAW that will finally settle the explosive issues in our political
system? Or should our internal differences continue to constitute an everlasting
and insurmountable barrier to our national prosperity and redemption from
poverty? When will Nigeria become a national rather than geographical
expression? Will it happen in our lifetime? If Awo, the Sarduana, Aminu Kano,
the Great Zik, Joseph Tarka, Isaac Boro and Abiola were to resurrect from their
graves, they will surely be baffled by the current state of our country. We feel sure
that when our people know what we are loosing by our continued disunity they
will rise up to the challenge of arriving at a national consensus to implement the
required changes. For everyday that we are quarrelling and procrastinating the
economic structure of the world is being rewritten. By virtue of their success just
within a generation of effort China, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, India and
Japan are the list of the World Banks projected ten largest economies by 2020.
The others are Germany, United States and France. Nigerians must, therefore,
come together to agree to bury our internal problems in order to ensure our
economic survival.
We should immediately commence the process by creating a balanced Federal
Republic and implementing vision 20:2020. But we have a problem here. We are
trying to implement Vision 20:2020 without first of all resolving our fundamental
political problem of achieving national unity and harmony through the
establishment of a balanced federal structure. We appear to be putting the cart
before the horse. We should solve our political problems first just as Malaysians
did before embarking on Vision 20:2020. Otherwise it will be an endeavour in
futility. It is not possible to solve our economic problems without first of all
resolving our political problems. Vision 20:2020 is a good idea but it can only be
effectively pursued after we have balanced the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Will
Nigeria ever achieve a balanced federation? We have no choice in this matter. If
we persist in creating additional ten states as advocated by Senate President, we
39

may end up as a failed state where the state only manages to pay salaries and
allowances of public office holders.
There is one comforting thought in all this. This is the unique capacity of
Nigerians to rise up with one voice and one inconquerable spirit, once they see the
light. The question is when shall we see the light? When we eventually do we will
not only overcome our differences but we shall be shocked and amazed at the
limitless potentials of this country of ours called Nigeria.
Notes
1. We owe the classification of these periods to the illuminating Article by
Proffessor A. E. Afigbo entitled Federal Character: its meaning and
History contained in P.P. Ekeh and E. E. Osaghae edited federal character
in federalism in Nigeria (1989).
2. This subject well analyzed in
B.O. Nwabueze:

Ideas and Facts in Constitution Making

[1993]PP 220-228

3. B. O. Nwabueze:

Ideas and Facts in Constitution

Making opt cit 228

4. Arthur Lewis:

POLITICS IN WEST AFRICA [1965]P1

5. Obafemi Awolowo:

Path To Nigerian Freedom(1947

Reprint London Faber[1966]p47

6. Ibid:

p47

7. See Arend Lijiphart:

Democracy in Plural Societies:

A cooperative Exploration [1977]p1

8. Obafemi Awolowo:

THOUGHTS ON NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION.

[1977] p38

9. Toyin Falola and

Adam Paddock:

Nationalists and Visions of Nigeria In The

Context of Decolonization 1940s-1960.
40

(edited)

Contained in Essays in honour of Professor Adiele

Afigbo p425

10. Nnamdi Azikiwe:

Political Blueprint of Nigeria [1943] p11

11.Ibid :

Ibid p12

12. John Anden:

Ahmadu Bello. Sarduana of Sokoto [1986] p3

13. B. O. Nwabueze:

Ideas and Fact in Constitution Making [1993]p228

14. Ibid :

p224

15. On the theory of federalism see Generally L. Adiele Jinadu A note on the
theory and L. O. Dare Perspectives on Federalism contained in Readings
on Federalism edited by Dr. A. B. Akinyemi, Dr. P. D. Cole and Walter
Ofonagor [1980]
16.L. Adiele Jinedu opt cit p14
17.W. A. Livingston:

Federalsim and Constitutional Changes [1956]

18.K. C. Wheare:

Federal Government 4th fd NY Oxford University

Press.

19.B. O. Nwabueze:

Federalsim in Nigeria under the Presidential

Constitution.[1983]

20.Livingston:

opt cit.

21. I. O. Dare:

opt cit p30.

22.K.C. Wheare:

Federal Government, 4th edition.

23.Ibid:

p 10

24.B. O. Nwabueze:

Federalism in Nigeria under the Presidential

Constitution.
41

25.Ibid
26.Ibid

p 1.

27.A. E. Afigbo:

opt cit p7

28.Ibid:

p 8.

29.Ibid:

p 8.

30.Ibid:

p 8.

31.Ibid:

p 9.

32.Ibid:

p 8.

33.Ibid:

p 9.

34.Obafemi Awolowo:

Peoples Republic of Nigeria [1968] p62

35.A. E. Afigbo:

opt cit p11.

36.Ibid:

p 12.

37.Ibid:

p 12.

38.Ibid:

p 13.

39.B. O. Nwabueze:

Federalism in Nigeria opt cit p.

40.Chuba Okadigbo:

Power and Leadership in Nigeria

4th Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd [1987] p 24

41.B. O. Nwabueze:

Federalism in Nigeria opt cit pp507

42.Ibid:

p 309.

43.Nigeria Tribune:

May 14 1977 p 1
42

44.Zimako Zimako:

FACE OF A NATION: DEMOCRACY IN

NIGERIA, FOREIGN RELATIONS,
NATIONAL IMAGE [2009].

45.Ibid:

p 97.

46.Ibid:

p 96.

AND

47. As quoted in Zimako Zimako opt cit p 100.

48.B. O. Nwabueze:

Nigeria 93. The Political Crisis and Solutions

[1994] pp 162-163

49.Guardian May 2, 1997 p 2

50.Nwabueze Nigeria 1993 opt cit p163.
51.Ibid

p166.

52.Ibid

p 166

53.B.O. Nwabueze:

Nigeria 93:The Political Crisis and Solutions p169

54.Ibid

p 169-170

55.Ibid

p 17

56.Ibid

p 172

57.B. O. Nwabueze:

Military Rule and Constitutionalism p 253.

58.Ibid

p 254

59.B. O. Nwabueze:

Ideas and Facts in Constitution making

[1993] p 238.

60.Ibid

p 254.

43

61. See Text of the Presentation by Dato Dr. Noordin Sopee on the Malaysian
Experience and the discussions which followed at the Vision 2010
Committee p 43 (no date).

44