Opinion
Still On Nigeria’s Unity
Unity in Nigeria is a phrase that is almost a cliché in Nigeria. Most leaders in the country, at any suitable opportunity pontificate on national unity even when their commitment to its ideals remains in doubt. Our leaders are quick to claim that the unity of the nation cannot be negotiated even as their actions and inactions negate national cohesion.
During his nationwide broadcast to mark the nation’s 61st Independence Anniversary recently President Muhammadu Buhari, for the umpteenth time, emphasised that the unity of the country is not negotiable.
Many other political leaders have often also toed that path. When they want to claim to be patriotic, mostly for their own selfish gain, they call up the introductory statement of the Nigerian Constitution which has it that “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: having firmly and solemnly resolved to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation …”
But they will hardly highlight that, being a federation; there are certain elements which must be seen in the country. Chiefly among them is that, in a federation, there must be devolution of power. Power should be shared proportionately between the various levels of government or the component units; there must be some measure of independence and autonomy for the component units. Do we have all these features in Nigeria’s federation? The answer is no.
In our country, the devolution of power is disproportionate. We have a situation where the government at the centre has overwhelming power in comparison with the states and the local governments. The federal government has control over the natural resources in any part of the country. This has given rise to the age-long agitation for resource control, particularly by the oil-producing areas that bear the brunt of oil exploration, from whose backyards oil, the mainstay of Nigeria’s economy, is derived, yet they live in squalor.
Ours is a country where a state that cannot generate enough money to cater for its needs has nothing to fear because at the end of the month, finance commissioners will converge on Abuja to share the allocation for the month. We are aware of the ongoing legal tussle between the Government of Rivers State and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) over Value-Added Tax (VAT) collection. Some states are given back the total sum of money generated from VAT, while other states are given a minute fraction of what was generated from their domain. While we wait to see how the issue plays out at the Supreme Court, we cannot help but wonder how there can be true autonomy and development of the various states in this manner?
There is also the issue of a centralised police force where, though there are police commissioners in the various states, they take orders from the Inspector General of Police in Abuja. The governors are called chief security officers but they are not in charge of security of their domains in the real sense of it. We have seen instances where some governors cried out that, though they are called the chief security officers of their states, they are almost helpless in the face of serious security challenges in their domains because the police commissioners do not obey them when they give orders concerning the situation; hence, the unending call for state police, which will engender effective policing of the states and reduce insecurity in the country.
Similarly, Section 14 (3) (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides for federal character, a principle that was introduced to engender a feeling of inclusiveness, such that all the people that make up the country will have the feeling that they are part of the country. It states: “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 a 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 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.” The same thing is applicable to the states.
Incidentally, today, we see the opposite of this constitutional provision playing out in the country. People from some certain ethnic groups are seen at the helm of affairs of government agencies, parastatals and all that. All the key security, intelligence and defence officers hail mainly from the president’s section of the country. All the three arms of government in this country – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are headed by citizens of northern extraction who are also of the same religion. Some ethnic groups continue to be in power while other groups, particularly the minority groups, are hardly considered. Despite regular complaints from leaders of other regions in the complex diversity, the president has failed to defuse tension arising from the negative perception that our leader is overtly promoting sectionalism. I recall the Coordinator of the Southern and Middle Belt Forum (SMBF) and immediate past President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Nnia Nwodo, expressing shock and disappointment at President Buhari’s exclusion of Igbos in the appointment of the current Service Chiefs.
Some other minority ethnic groups have equally complained of being swallowed up by the three major ethnic groups in the country – Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba in many affairs of the nation, particularly in politics and leadership of the country. With the exception of former President Goodluck Jonathan, through an act of fate, the position for the president of the country had rotated among the three major groups, they claim. As the 2023 general elections draw near, all manner of arguments are being put up by people from the northern part of the country, a region that has been in power in the past seven years, in defence of another northern president come 2023.
So, in as much as one agrees that there are enormous benefits of Nigeria remaining as a united entity, it goes without saying that in view of the challenges and some structural problems associated with our federation, some of which have been highlighted, which is responsible for the endless calls for devolution of power, restructuring, resource control, state police, division of the country and many others, it is imperative that people from various parts of the country should come together and negotiate how to stay and move on together as one country.
We can remain a united and one indivisible nation but there is an urgent need to renegotiate the terms of the unity, so as to make every group feel more secure in the union. Renegotiating the terms of existence will bring more development to the country and solidify its unity. Nigeria is not the first to do so. Many other countries like the United Kingdom, the former Soviet Union and others toed and continue to toe that path and there is no doubt that Nigeria will be better if we emulate these countries.
By: Calista Ezeaku
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo