Nigeria’s independence on October 1, 1960 marked the beginning of a nation built on three autonomous and distinct regions, a federal parliament, and regional administrative structures. These regions competed for influence and development, thereby setting Nigeria on a trajectory for greatness. The North, the West, and the East each managed their affairs and addressed the peculiar needs of their people through culturally tailored policies aimed at human and infrastructural development.
During the Nigerian regional era, the Northern Regional Government focused its policies on maintaining traditional authority and social order, expanding education at a controlled pace, promoting agricultural development, preserving Islamic and customary institutions, ensuring internal security, and pursuing gradual economic modernization. Northern Nigeria maintained a conservative political culture, with leadership emphasizing stability and incremental change.
In the same era, the Eastern Regional Government pursued policies rooted in mass education, industrialization, agricultural improvement, and the expansion of commerce. The South East exhibited a strong entrepreneurial culture and a clear desire for rapid modernization and development.
The Western Regional Government focused on mass literacy through free and universal education, rural and urban infrastructure development, social welfare and human capital development, modernization of agriculture, and foreign policy projection, among other priorities. During this period, each region addressed its peculiar challenges with culturally tailored policies that directly impacted citizens. This approach placed Nigeria on a genuine path of growth and development, a trajectory that was abruptly interrupted by the January 15 coup of 1966. Since 1966, Nigeria has largely operated a unitary system, marked by decades of political turbulence and instability, until the emergence of the Fourth Republic in 1999.
Before the military intervention, Nigeria’s main source of foreign exchange earnings was the export of agricultural products such as cocoa, groundnut, palm oil, palm kernel, rubber, cotton, kola nuts, timber, hides and skins, and grains. At the same time, Nigeria experienced the rise of indigenous industries in textile production, food processing, arts and crafts, and other sectors that promised self sustenance. This economic trajectory was abruptly halted by Decree 34 of the 1966 military junta.
Since the return to democratic rule, Nigerians have consistently called for the restructuring of the country, citing various deficiencies in the 1999 Constitution that guides the current democratic dispensation. Many have condemned the constitution as an ill structured document imposed by the military, one that neither reflects contemporary realities nor adequately addresses the perennial challenges facing the country and its people. After twenty six years of democratic rule, Nigeria continues to struggle with challenges that threaten its cohesion. These range from moderate issues such as inter ethnic mistrust and tension, infrastructure deficits, poverty, and unemployment, to severe threats such as widespread insecurity. These problems have become persistent and demand urgent solutions.
A question that therefore begs an answer is what restructuring Nigeria could have achieved, and whether restructuring alone could have solved Nigeria’s problems.
Many prominent Nigerians have argued both for and against restructuring. While some believe that restructuring is necessary to stimulate development and enhance productivity, others are haunted by the ghosts of the past, including fears of self determination and the possible disintegration of Nigeria. Many Nigerians from all walks of life have advocated a return to the 1960 Independence Constitution, suggesting that it possesses the capacity to reset Nigeria and restore it to the path of development. While the 1960 Constitution was indeed remarkable for its time, the realities of contemporary Nigeria differ significantly from those of the 1960s.
Regionalism in Nigeria’s First Republic was feasible for several reasons. Firstly, Southern Nigeria did not conceal its desire for self rule. The Yoruba, in particular, formed a strong antagonistic force against British colonial administration. During this period, various nationalist movements emerged and consistently opposed continued British rule. In the effort to end colonial domination, negotiations for a united Nigeria with a regional structure proved more feasible than demands for separate sovereign states for major ethnic groups. However, this dynamic has shifted, as the constituent peoples of Nigeria no longer contend with the presence of British rule.
Nigeria today is visibly divided along ethnic and religious lines, with these divisions continuing to widen for various reasons. Similar to the late colonial era, the last two decades have witnessed the proliferation of nationalist and separatist movements such as the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra, the Niger Delta Avengers, the Indigenous People of Biafra, and the Oduduwa Nation movement. This trend indicates a growing nationalist consciousness aimed at achieving independence from the Nigerian union rather than merely securing autonomous rule within it.
Secondly, the collapse of Nigeria’s First Republic has often been attributed to agendas of ethnic domination. The 1966 coup d’état that ended regional governance has been widely linked to the perceived desire of certain elements within the Ibo ethnic group to dominate other ethnic nationalities. The coup, orchestrated largely by military officers from Eastern Nigeria, resulted in the deaths of key Northern and Western political figures, while prominent Eastern politicians emerged largely unharmed. This episode entrenched deep mistrust among Nigeria’s ethnic groups, a mistrust that continues to shape the country’s political environment. In recent times, persistent ethnic tensions in the Middle Belt, where Fulani militias have continued to wreak havoc, further illustrate why coexistence remains difficult even within a restructured regional system, given the differing cultural values involved.
Thirdly, cultural conservatism remains a common behavioural pattern among Nigeria’s constituent groups. Most ethnic nationalities exhibit strong conservative tendencies. The North is predominantly Islamic, and despite the secular character of the Nigerian state, Sharia law is practiced in twelve core northern states. In the South East, land ownership and religious conservatism remain deeply entrenched among the Ibos. Although Yorubaland has historically been more open, the recent rise of nationalism in the region has strengthened arguments for cultural conservatism, driven by perceived threats of cultural erosion and political displacement from ancestral lands. Conservatism is therefore likely to persist even under a restructured Nigeria, with Yorubaland potentially continuing to bear the pressures of the forced union. Similarly, Nigerian politics itself is largely conservative and ethnocentric. Most political parties remain regionally rooted and rarely evolve into truly national platforms, even when they secure presidential power. This pattern has fostered nepotism and favoritism at the expense of merit based systems.
Finally, deep cultural differences, particularly between the predominantly Islamic North and the largely Christian South, have long been sources of conflict. Issues surrounding state secularism, lifestyles, and policy priorities differ significantly across regions. For decades, herder farmer conflicts have persisted, rooted in the nomadic lifestyle of Fulani herders and their interactions with farming communities, especially in the North Central states. Furthermore, the South West has become a preferred destination for millions of Nigerians from other ethnic backgrounds who struggle to survive in their ancestral homes and seek better opportunities and safer environments. This pattern of internal migration has placed increasing pressure on the resources, infrastructure, and overall quality of life of the Yoruba people in the South West.
Although regionalism appeared to function in both pre independence and early post independence Nigeria, contemporary dynamics have shifted, with citizens now more deeply divided and closely tied to ethnic identities. This development makes regionalism less attractive and uncertain as a solution to Nigeria’s challenges. To achieve peace and development, Nigeria may need to draw lessons from European approaches to managing ethnic identities, where many ethnic groups have independent states, alongside well coordinated unions such as the United Kingdom.
Nigeria faces profound challenges arising from cultural incompatibility and divergent values among its constituent groups. These differences have contributed to decades of stagnation, conflict, and ideological clashes. To resolve these issues, Nigeria must look beyond the unitary system, regionalism, and the current pseudo federal arrangement. A viable alternative is a confederal system of government, in which each region possesses its own government, laws, and lifestyle tailored to its cultural, economic, and psychological needs. Such a system would enable regions to formulate policies that protect their core interests.
A confederation could address challenges such as uncontrolled internal migration, insecurity, poverty, and social problems including the production of fake commodities, drug peddling, and corruption. Under this arrangement, regions would exercise sovereignty over economic, border, and security policies, while the central government would function primarily as a coordinating body. Its responsibilities would include facilitating cooperation among the member states, representing them collectively in external relations when joint representation is required, coordinating common defence and security arrangements, managing joint trade and communication frameworks, and providing forums for consultation and dispute resolution. This structure would allow sovereign regions to determine their own laws, economic priorities, and security policies, control their borders, and yet remain under the umbrella of a unified country, projected as one entity with better managed ethnic nationalities.
A Nigerian stitch in time will save nine.
