As Nigeria embarks on another constitutional amendment process, legal experts and political analysts have reignited discussions around alternative governance models—particularly, the idea of transitioning from a federal system to a confederation. Given the country’s persistent ethnic, religious, and regional tensions, proponents believe a confederal structure could provide a more functional and harmonious framework for coexistence in Africa’s most populous nation.

A confederation, by definition, is a political alliance where sovereign states unite for common purposes, such as defense or trade, while retaining independent control over internal affairs. The central government, in this arrangement, is intentionally weak and derives authority only from the express consent of its member states.

Understanding the Concept: What Is a Confederation?

Unlike a federation, where power is constitutionally divided between the national and state governments, a confederation prioritizes the sovereignty of its constituent units. Each region operates almost like an independent country, voluntarily delegating limited responsibilities to a central authority, typically for coordination on external matters like diplomacy or collective security.

According to political scholars and institutions like Britannica and Encyclopedia.com, confederations often emerge when culturally distinct or historically independent regions seek to collaborate without relinquishing their autonomy. While rare in the modern world, confederations have appeared throughout history during transitional or post-colonial phases of nationhood.

Historical Examples of Confederations

The idea of a confederation is not new. Several historical precedents offer insight into both the advantages and the challenges of such a system:

• The United States under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789): After gaining independence from Britain, the original 13 American colonies formed a loose alliance. Each state retained full sovereignty, while the national government had no power to tax or enforce laws. This arrangement quickly proved ineffective, prompting the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and the transition to a federal system.

• The Swiss Confederacy: Formed in 1291, the early Swiss alliance brought together several independent cantons for mutual protection. Though Switzerland later evolved into a federation in 1848, the country still retains the official title “Swiss Confederation” in recognition of its decentralized origins.

• Serbia and Montenegro (2003–2006): This short-lived union operated with two largely autonomous republics sharing minimal central institutions. The arrangement dissolved peacefully in 2006, resulting in two fully independent nations.

Modern organizations like the European Union also exhibit confederal traits, with member states cooperating on economic and foreign policy while maintaining national sovereignty.

Could Confederation Work for Nigeria?

For Nigeria, the debate around confederation centers on how best to manage its diversity and reduce intergroup conflict. With over 250 ethnic groups, stark regional inequalities, and recurring clashes over issues like land ownership and indigeneity, some believe the federal structure has failed to deliver national cohesion.

Recent legislative proposals—such as the bill attempting to grant automatic “indigene” status to long-term residents or property owners—reflect a growing urgency to redefine national identity and access to rights. However, such legal shortcuts often exacerbate tensions by attempting to override deep-rooted cultural and communal boundaries.

A confederal model, on the other hand, would allow each state or region to define its own citizenship criteria, manage its lands, and craft policies that reflect local values. Rather than impose uniformity, confederation embraces pluralism by letting each unit function independently while still participating in a collective framework.

Key Features of a Nigerian Confederation

If Nigeria were to adopt a confederal structure, the arrangement might include:

1. Sovereign Regions: Each state or region would have the authority to manage its own laws, internal security, education, and cultural policies.

2. Minimal Central Authority: The federal government would only coordinate on agreed matters like foreign policy, military defense, or macroeconomic policy.

3. Equal Representation: Decision-making at the national level would require consensus, ensuring that no region is overruled by another.

4. Voluntary Union: States would retain the constitutional right to exit the union if they feel their interests are not being served.

5. Localized Citizenship: States could determine who qualifies as an indigene, avoiding national conflicts over belonging, residency, or land rights.

Advantages of a Confederal System

A confederation could offer several potential benefits for Nigeria:

• Cultural Preservation: Each region could protect and promote its own traditions, languages, and customs without external interference.

• Conflict Reduction: By removing competition for centralized control, confederation could ease political and ethnic rivalries.

• Greater Accountability: Local governance would bring government closer to the people, improving responsiveness and reducing corruption.

• Custom-Fit Development: States could pursue development models tailored to their unique resources and priorities.

Potential Challenges and Drawbacks

Despite these benefits, critics caution that confederation is not without risks:

• Weak National Unity: A fragile central government might struggle to coordinate nationwide programs or maintain security.

• Economic Disparities: Wealthier regions might advance faster than poorer ones, deepening inequality without federal redistribution.

• Legal and Administrative Complexity: Different laws and standards across regions could complicate trade, migration, and citizenship.

• Possibility of Secession: If disagreements escalate, regions might withdraw from the union, threatening the country’s territorial integrity.

Confederalism vs. Forced Integration

Proponents argue that Nigeria’s diversity cannot be managed through centralized control or imposed identity. Attempts to create a homogenized national culture often alienate minority groups and breed resentment. Confederalism offers a more organic solution—one that allows communities to retain their distinctiveness while collaborating where necessary.

A practical example: the push to define “indigene” based on long-term residency or property ownership, such as a Certificate of Occupancy, has been met with resistance in many communities. Under a confederation, each region could independently decide how to handle land tenure, citizenship, and local identity, avoiding the need for one-size-fits-all legislation.

Would Laws Like the “Indigene Bill” Be Needed?

In a confederate Nigeria, bills like the one proposed by Rep. Benjamin Kalu—seeking to grant indigene status through national law—would likely become redundant. That’s because states would have full autonomy to determine their membership rules without pressure from a central authority.

Instead of enforcing indigeneity through legal fiat, identity could evolve naturally through intermarriage, cultural integration, and community consensus. Regions would have the freedom to welcome newcomers or limit access, based on their own social dynamics—not federal mandates.

Conclusion: A Union of Consent, Not Compulsion

As Nigeria’s leaders review the constitution, it is imperative to consider systems that reflect the country’s complex realities. A confederal structure, while unconventional, may offer a viable alternative to the current federal model, which has often failed to accommodate the nation’s deep ethnic and regional divides.

Rather than suppressing difference, a confederation would celebrate diversity by allowing regions to govern themselves while cooperating on shared goals. It would shift power closer to the people, reduce tensions over land and identity, and encourage development based on regional strengths.

If peace, progress, and true unity are the goals of Nigeria’s constitutional reform, then the path forward may lie not in more centralization—but in purposeful decentralization, grounded in mutual respect and voluntary cooperation.