How to Make Nigeria Work, If Still Possible

By Ugo Onuoha It will be difficult, probably impossible, to make Nigeria work the way it is presently structured and governed. In theory, we are running a federal system. In practice, it is a unitary structure where operatives in Abuja determine who gets what, how, when, and where. The Osun Example and a Flawed Federal System Until recently, Osun State, governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), became the latest victim of this distorted arrangement. The Supreme Court had ruled in July 2024 that local government funds must be paid directly to councils, not through state governments. It also declared that only democratically elected councils are entitled to federal allocations. Yet, that judgment has largely been ignored. Some states have passed laws effectively nullifying it, and in many others, it remains business as usual. Ironically, the same federal government that sought the ruling, under President Bola Tinubu, has itself been accused of flouting it. For months, Abuja withheld Osun’s local government allocations, claiming that PDP-controlled councils were illegitimate. The state was forced to rely on Governor Ademola Adeleke and his nephew, musician Davido, who reportedly contributed funds to pay council workers’ salaries. When Osun challenged the federal government at the Supreme Court, the court struck out the case for lack of standing but condemned Abuja’s action as “illegal and egregious.” Both sides claimed victory, but Nigerians were left with the same lesson: partisan politics trumps governance. Politicians vs. Statesmen The Osun case typifies a larger truth, partisan politicians cannot build nations. They are fixated on winning the next election, not on laying enduring foundations. Any country dominated by politicians rather than statesmen will struggle on the lower rungs of global development. That, sadly, has been Nigeria’s reality since the military sacked the First Republic in 1966. Nation-Building: A Process, Not an Event Nigeria will not work until we are intentional about making a nation out of the country. Building a sustainable nation requires a shared vision that fosters unity, common values, and inclusive governance. It also demands: Without these, our quest for progress will remain an illusion. The Foundation Is Broken The biblical question in Psalm 11:3 asks: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Nigeria’s foundation, fractured by the 1966 coup and deepened by years of military rule, remains defective. The 1999 Constitution, hurriedly drafted by the Abdulsalami Abubakar junta, was designed to serve narrow interests—not the people. For nearly three decades, we’ve been trying to erect a nation on a bogus foundation. To move forward, Nigeria must start afresh, with a people-driven constitution that reflects true federalism and equity. A Case for Restructuring Many credible voices, including The Patriots led by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, have long called for a new national arrangement. Their proposals include: These ideas, if sincerely implemented, can provide a roadmap to rebuild Nigeria. Structural Inequities and Centralized Power The existing federal structure, largely created by military fiat, is riddled with inequities. For instance, the old Kano State was split into Kano and Jigawa, now boasting over 70 local councils combined—while Lagos, with a similar population, has only 20. This imbalance affects representation and resource distribution. Power is dangerously centralized in the presidency, making elections a do-or-die affair and fueling corruption. The figures involved in federal scandals have ballooned from billions to trillions of naira, yet Nigerians no longer express shock. The presidency has become a “golden calf”, an object of worship. Unchecked power breeds inefficiency, arrogance, and impunity. The signs are visible everywhere. The Way Forward To make Nigeria work, we must: Until these steps are taken, Nigeria will continue to move in circles—rich in potential, poor in leadership, and crippled by structure. In conclusion, Nigeria’s tragedy is not that it lacks talent or resources, but that it is burdened by a defective system and a political class unwilling to change it. The challenge before us is to summon the courage to rebuild from the ground up. Otherwise we will keep trying to place something on nothing and expecting it to stand. Ugo Onuoha is a journalist, public affairs commentator, and former Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief, Champion Newspapers Limited. He writes from Lagos.

INEC in America’s November election (1)

“America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism.“ THERE will be a significant election this year in a significant country which prides itself as the greatest democracy on earth. That country, a super power, claims that the election will be consequential, and will have ramifications for its citizens, and the whole world. For about two centuries this country has held this poll on the first Saturday in November in the election year. For this year, that date falls on November 5. The election was initially slated to be a fierce battle between two old men, one in his late 70s, and the other in his early 80s. It was supposed to be a rematch, sort of, because the duo had battled each other four years ago with the older prevailing. You already know because that country is the United States of America where the then incumbent president, Donald Trump, was defeated in 2020, and his successor, Joe Biden, was defeated from seeking a second term by a disastrous presidential debate outing on June 27. Biden came under intense pressure from his party people, and had to ‘pass the torch’ in July to his vice president Kamala Harris who is younger and more energetic. America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism. There’s is no record that it has been governed by any other means except through the ballot box, at least not in the last 200 years. It lays claim to democracy but it fails to meet the key ingredient of rule by the majority of its citizens voting in an election. Certainly, not for the election of its president. The classical definition of democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. In many climes, it is also governance by representatives who had been elected by a majority of voters during any election. Not so in the United States. In 2016, Hillary Clinton, candidate of the Democratic Party lost the presidential election in spite of winning three million more popular votes of the electorate. His rival, Donald Trump, of the Republican Party with an inferior popular votes tally was returned as the winner. The unique but apparently an undemocratic (to many outsiders) Electoral College gave victory to Trump. The candidates and the parties in that contest knew the rule and so could not complain. “The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes.“ The name, Electoral College, which determines who is elected as the US president is not in that country’s constitution. History has it that the founding fathers of the country inserted this mode of electing a president as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress (parliament), which used to be the practice, and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Until the 1960s not many people were qualified to vote in elections. There was no universal suffrage. The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes. The Electoral College has been a vexatious subject in American politics for centuries. And that explains why surveys showed that in the past 200 years more than 700 proposals had been introduced in Congress to either reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Probably, to underline its undemocratic nature, it has been recorded that there have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the ‘electors’ method for determining the winner of the American presidency than on any other subject. Apart from politicians, America’s body of lawyers, the American Bar Association, has had cause to criticise the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous”, and its polling showed that 69% of lawyers favoured abolishing it in 1987. In addition, public opinion polls showed that Americans favoured abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981. The conventional wisdom is that any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular votes nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees as implicated in the presidential election results of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. It has been suggested that the Electoral College was contrived by the founders of the US to stem the possible agitations for separation from the Union by less populated states who may feel cheated and excluded in producing the president of the country. In effect, the Electoral College was informed by the need for the accommodation of all segments of the society. However, some scholars argued that the ‘electors’ scheme was indeed the handiwork of a segment of the elite among the founding fathers who did not want to totally relinquish the election of the president to the masses. On November 5, two candidates  Harris (Democrat), and Trump (Republican ) will lock horns for who occupies the American presidency which is generally regarded as the most powerful office in the world. Third party candidates are usually inconsequential since none has won the office ever. Harris appears to have an edge in the race at this time but election watchers reckon that in reality, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck. The proposition for the moment is that any of Harris or Trump can win the election. And this uncertainty is down to the complexities of the Electoral College. In 2016, polls and pundits put Hillary Clinton ahead by