Nigeria’s persistent crises in governance, economy, and equity stem from the country’s flawed constitutional framework, not just poor management of resources as claimed by Vice President Shettima.

At the heart of Nigeria’s enduring national challenges lies a chronic misapplication of federalism—one that continues to be misunderstood, misrepresented, or dismissed by many political leaders since the military upended the country’s original federal structure in 1966. Vice President Kashim Shettima, in his recent remarks at the seventh Leadership Conference and Awards in Abuja, joined the chorus of officials who minimize the constitutional distortions at the center of Nigeria’s dysfunction.

Shettima asserted that the country’s issues stem not from the flaws in its federal structure but rather from the poor management of public resources. He cautioned against adopting foreign models that fail to account for Nigeria’s unique ethnic, social, and demographic composition. In his view, Nigeria doesn’t need a replica of any other nation’s system but rather one tailored to its own aspirations.

While this sounds pragmatic on the surface, it ignores the fundamental and deeply entrenched structural defects embedded in Nigeria’s constitutional design. These defects—not merely administrative inefficiencies—are the primary culprits behind the country’s economic stagnation, security crises, and persistent injustice.

The Illusion of Federalism Under the 1999 Constitution

The 1999 Constitution, often lauded as the foundation of Nigeria’s current democracy, is in fact a unitary framework cloaked in federal language. With 68 powers vested exclusively in the central government, the document effectively emasculates state and local governments, denying them autonomy over critical sectors such as policing, energy, infrastructure, minerals, and taxation.

This top-heavy design is unheard of among the world’s 26 federations. Nigeria stands alone as the only federal country that operates a single, centrally-controlled police force. In practice, this means state governments lack the constitutional right to create their own police or security outfits, even when facing unique local threats that federal security forces fail to address.

In fiscal terms, the center takes 52.6% of national revenues—leaving only a fraction for the 36 states and 774 local governments. This kind of financial centralization, where the federal government monopolizes mineral resources and tightly controls taxes, is antithetical to federal principles, which emphasize local ownership and control of resources.

Despite Shettima’s insistence that resource mismanagement is the root of Nigeria’s challenges, no amount of administrative efficiency can compensate for a structurally defective foundation. Good governance cannot thrive where there is no true autonomy or incentive for subnational entities to innovate, compete, and grow.

Ignoring Nigeria’s Successful Federalist Past

The Vice President’s remarks also overlook a key historical reality: Nigeria’s first and only true experiment with federalism during the First Republic brought significant progress. Under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, the regions—Northern, Western, Eastern, and later Mid-Western—enjoyed considerable autonomy. Each region controlled its resources, retained 50% of revenues, contributed 20% to the central government, and 30% to a distributable pool.

This arrangement spurred healthy competition among regions. The Western Region launched Africa’s first television station, built the iconic Cocoa House in Ibadan, and introduced free education. The Eastern Region became a hub for industrial development, while the North, leveraging its agricultural base, built key infrastructure.

That golden era ended with the 1966 military coup, which dismantled regional autonomy and imposed a unitary military command structure disguised as federalism. The 1999 Constitution, drafted under the shadow of military rule, merely codified these unitary distortions. That document—written without broad citizen participation—now serves as the root of Nigeria’s modern crises.

Federalism vs Feeding-Bottle Governance

A real federal structure allows each region or state to chart its own development path. It devolves power and resources in a manner that supports self-reliance, accountability, and innovation. Conversely, Nigeria’s pseudo-federalism encourages rent-seeking, dependence on federal allocations, and the politicization of resource control.

States, denied access to their mineral resources, wait each month for handouts from Abuja. The result is a lazy, non-competitive governance culture. Meanwhile, solid minerals worth billions lie untapped across the 36 states due to laws that vest exclusive control in the federal government. According to the 2005 National Political Reforms Conference, every state in Nigeria possesses at least five commercially viable mineral deposits. Yet, they remain dormant while the country relies almost solely on oil.

This monoculture economy has proven vulnerable to global oil price shocks, corruption, and mismanagement. It has also deprived states of opportunities to build diverse, sustainable economies. Shettima’s claim that this is merely a management issue glosses over the truth: without the power to harness their own resources, states are crippled from the outset.

LG Autonomy and Structural Conflicts

Even local governments, which in a proper federation should be under the control of state governments, are victims of constitutional ambiguity. While Section 162(6) of the 1999 Constitution mandates a “State-Local Government Joint Account,” recent Supreme Court rulings advocate for direct disbursement to LGs, creating legal and administrative confusion.

Some governors, such as Anambra’s Charles Soludo, have warned that full autonomy for LGs without proper oversight will breed corruption and governance chaos. Soludo rightly points out that such autonomy must be state-directed, as seen in the United States, Germany, and Australia, where local councils are subordinated to regional authorities for effective governance.

With 774 constitutionally mandated local governments—most drawn along arbitrary lines during military rule—the current arrangement not only violates the principles of federalism but also creates an unequal and inefficient system. Resource-rich states like Bayelsa, with only eight LGAs, receive far less federal allocation than less productive states with numerous LGAs. This disparity further entrenches injustice.

Ignoring Constitutional Reform is National Suicide

Shettima’s dismissal of the need to restructure Nigeria’s constitutional architecture contradicts the recommendations of several national conferences, including the 2014 Constitutional Conference. These forums concluded that only a restructured Nigeria—built on true federal principles—can deliver peace, equity, and prosperity.

They proposed devolution of powers, regional police, resource control, and the reduction of the federal government’s powers. Unfortunately, successive governments have shelved these recommendations, often citing political expediency or fear of losing central control.

The World Poverty Clock labeled Nigeria the “poverty capital of the world” in 2018, a status that reflects not only economic mismanagement but structural failure. In 2022, the National Bureau of Statistics reported that 133 million Nigerians lived in multidimensional poverty. By 2023, the World Food Programme warned that one in eight Nigerians faced acute food insecurity.

These statistics underscore a grim reality: Nigeria’s federalist facade has failed to deliver meaningful development or economic stability. No amount of competent leadership can compensate for a constitution that centralizes power, stifles initiative, and breeds dependency.

Conclusion: True Federalism is Nigeria’s Lifeline

Shettima’s assertion that Nigeria’s problems stem solely from mismanagement, not structural flaws, fails to acknowledge the full weight of constitutional dysfunctions that cripple governance at all levels. Effective administration matters, yes—but only when supported by a functional, fair, and truly federal constitution.

What Nigeria needs is not cosmetic reform or political grandstanding but courageous, comprehensive restructuring. True federalism—where federating units control their resources, manage their security, and drive their development—is the only viable path forward.

Until the political elite confront the contradictions embedded in the 1999 Constitution, Nigeria will remain caught in a cycle of poverty, insecurity, and underdevelopment. Leadership must move beyond empty rhetoric and face the truth: the time to restructure is now.