Nigeria Debates Constitutional Return to Regional Government

Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation and largest economy, is engaged in a high-stakes constitutional debate that could fundamentally reshape how its 230 million people are governed. At the center of the storm is a proposal that has electrified the country's political landscape: abolishing the current 36-state federal structure and returning to a regional system of government — a model Nigeria abandoned six decades ago after a military coup shattered its First Republic.

The proposal has emerged as the most prominent demand in a sweeping constitutional amendment process underway in the National Assembly, where over 80 bills are being considered in what scholars have called a potential "new constitutional moment" [1]. But as the debate intensifies, it is exposing the deepest fault lines in Nigerian society — between north and south, between centralists and devolutionists, between those who benefit from the status quo and those who believe only radical restructuring can save Africa's giant from itself.

A System Under Strain

To understand why so many Nigerians are clamoring for a return to regionalism, one must first grasp the depth of the country's current governance crisis.

Nigeria's GDP per capita has plummeted from approximately $3,190 in 2019 to just $1,084 in 2024, according to World Bank data [2]. Inflation surged to 33.2% in 2024, up from 11.4% just five years earlier [2]. The country's population continues to grow rapidly — reaching an estimated 232.7 million in 2024 — but economic growth has failed to keep pace, leaving millions further behind.

Source: World Bank Open Data

Data as of Feb 24, 2026CSV

Under the current federal arrangement, the central government in Abuja claims 52.68% of all nationally collected revenue. The 36 states share 26.72%, while 774 local government areas divide the remaining 20.60% [3]. This lopsided formula, critics argue, has created a system of dependency in which states function less as autonomous governing units and more as administrative outposts waiting for monthly handouts from the Federation Account.

"The current system is flawed unitary centralism," Professor Charles Nwekeaku of the Igbo Elders Consultative Forum declared during public hearings on constitutional reform [4]. His assessment is widely shared across southern Nigeria and the Middle Belt, where prominent socio-cultural organizations — Afenifere in the Southwest, Ohanaeze Ndigbo in the Southeast, and the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) in the South-South — have for years demanded a fundamental restructuring of the Nigerian federation [5].

The First Republic Model: Nostalgia and Reality

The regional government system that proponents wish to revive has deep roots in Nigerian history. When Nigeria gained independence from Britain in 1960, and subsequently became a republic in 1963, the country was organized into three regions — Northern, Western, and Eastern — with a fourth, the Mid-Western Region, carved out in 1963 [6]. Each region enjoyed substantial autonomy: it controlled its own resources, maintained its own police force, ran its own civil service, and developed its economy according to its comparative advantages.

Under the premiership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the Western Region became famous for free universal primary education and the development of cocoa exports. Sir Ahmadu Bello's Northern Region built an economy around groundnut production, while Dr. Michael Okpara's Eastern Region thrived on palm oil [7]. Each region paid agreed royalties to the federal center — the exact inverse of the current system, in which states depend on allocations flowing down from Abuja.

This period is often remembered as a golden age of Nigerian governance. But the nostalgia comes with critical caveats. The regional system was also marked by intense ethnic rivalries, minority grievances, political violence, and ultimately a military coup in January 1966 that ended the First Republic and triggered a civil war that killed an estimated one to three million people [6].

The Constitutional Battleground

The current debate gained formal momentum when the National Assembly's Special Committee on Constitutional Review began receiving public memoranda as part of its ongoing amendment process. Among the 56 memoranda submitted, calls for a return to regional government topped the list [8]. A draft bill by Dr. Akin Fapohunda, titled "A Bill for an Act to Substitute the Annexure to Decree 24 of 1999 with a New Governance Model for the Federal Republic of Nigeria," became a lightning rod for discussion when it was presented during a Senate retreat in Kano [4].

The bill proposes replacing the presidential system with a parliamentary model, installing a Prime Minister as head of government, and establishing Regional Premiers to govern autonomous regions — potentially aligned with Nigeria's existing six geopolitical zones: North-West, North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-East, and South-South [7].

In March 2025, the House of Representatives approved over 80 constitutional amendment bills spanning five core reform areas: judicial independence, electoral reform, state policing, federalism and devolution, and gender inclusion [1]. Public hearings were conducted across all six geopolitical zones in July 2025, with a target completion date of December 2025 for the entire process. Any successful amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the National Assembly, followed by ratification by at least 24 of the 36 state Houses of Assembly [1].

Source: IJRSI / Revenue Allocation Act

Data as of Mar 12, 2026CSV

The Southern Push

Support for regionalism is strongest in the south, where it is bound up with demands for resource control — particularly over oil revenues that flow predominantly from the Niger Delta.

At a Yoruba nation summit in Ibadan, leaders from the South-West were joined by South-South and South-East representatives in declaring support for a return to regional government that would allow regions to develop at their own pace [9]. The argument is straightforward: under a regional system, the South-South would gain direct control over its oil resources, the South-West over its commercial economy, and the South-East over its manufacturing and trade networks [7].

Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of Abuja, one of Nigeria's most prominent Catholic bishops, has lent moral authority to the cause, calling for "true and proper federalism" and arguing that such constitutional reform would "fizzle out separatist agitation… and there will be peace in Nigeria" [10]. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Nigeria has gone further, arguing that the 25-year experiment with the military-imposed 1999 presidential constitution has failed the country [10].

The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), traditionally seen as a voice of northern establishment interests, has offered cautious engagement. ACF Secretary Alhaji Murtala Aliyu participated in discussions about regionalism, reflecting a more nuanced northern position than simple opposition [4].

Northern Resistance and Minority Fears

Yet the proposal faces formidable opposition, much of it rooted in the north's political arithmetic and the anxieties of minority communities nationwide.

Senator Abdul Ningi, a lawmaker from Bauchi Central in the North-East, has been among the most vocal critics. Ningi argued that his constituents experienced no development benefits during the First Republic's regional era and have no desire to return to a system in which the far north was neglected by regional authorities based in Kaduna [4].

The Middle Belt Council of Elders has raised a different but equally potent concern: that under the previous regional system, ethnic minorities were marginalized by the dominant ethnic groups that controlled each region — the Hausa-Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in the West, and the Igbo in the East [4]. A return to regionalism, they warn, could reignite these patterns of domination.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) has offered a structural critique: layering regional governments on top of the existing state structure would simply add another expensive tier of bureaucracy to an already bloated system [4]. "Nigeria's current 36 state structure is costly to run, given the nation's deteriorating economy," he noted.

Hakeem Onapajo, a political scientist, argued in The Conversation that restructuring calls are fundamentally "a tool in the struggle for power among the political elites — a way to mobilise ethnic sentiments for political popularity and access to national wealth" [11]. He contended that Nigeria's governance crisis stems not from structural deficiencies but from failures in government effectiveness, rule of law, and corruption control — problems that no amount of structural tinkering can solve.

The Revenue Question

At the heart of the debate lies money. Nigeria's current revenue allocation formula is a legacy of military rule, designed to concentrate resources at the center and distribute them downward through a patronage system that keeps states financially dependent on Abuja.

Under the First Republic, the formula was essentially reversed: 50% of revenue went to the regions based on derivation (meaning regions kept half of what they generated), 30% went to a distributable pool, and only 20% went to the federal center [3]. Today, the 13% derivation principle — which sends a share of oil revenue back to producing states — is the only surviving remnant of that earlier model, and it has been a constant source of contention.

Proponents of regionalism argue that returning to a derivation-based model would incentivize economic development and reduce dependence on oil. Each region would be motivated to develop its agriculture, mining, technology, and service sectors rather than waiting for monthly allocations from Abuja [3].

Opponents counter that such a shift would devastate states in the north, which have fewer natural resources and weaker internal revenue generation, effectively creating a two-speed Nigeria in which the resource-rich south prospers while the north stagnates [11].

The Tinubu Factor

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a former Lagos State governor and longtime advocate of federalism, occupies an ambiguous position in this debate. His political base in the South-West has historically championed restructuring, and as governor he was one of the loudest voices calling for "true federalism."

Yet as president, Tinubu has been cautious. He has not publicly endorsed the regional government proposal, though some of his policy moves suggest openness to decentralization. In October 2024, he renamed the Ministry of Niger Delta as the Ministry of Regional Development, signaling a shift toward a more zones-based governance philosophy [12]. He has also signed development commissions into law for several geopolitical zones and decentralized institutions like the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology across the six zones [12].

These incremental moves fall far short of what restructuring advocates demand but may represent a pragmatic middle path — devolving powers and resources without the politically explosive step of dismantling the state structure entirely.

Alternative Paths

Not everyone who acknowledges the failures of the current system believes regionalism is the answer. Several alternative proposals have emerged from the constitutional review process.

Engineer Mu'azu Magaji has proposed a concept of "development federalism," in which the six geopolitical zones would be designated as economic development hubs with their own planning authorities, but without replacing the state structure [4]. This approach would add a coordinating layer focused on regional development without the wholesale constitutional upheaval that a return to regionalism would require.

Others have called for implementing the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference convened under President Goodluck Jonathan, which proposed significant devolution of powers to states, state police forces, and a revised revenue allocation formula — without going as far as abolishing states in favor of regions [4].

Local government autonomy is another emerging consensus position. Even many who oppose regionalism agree that the 774 local government areas need direct access to federal allocations rather than having their funds controlled — and frequently diverted — by state governors [1].

What Comes Next

The constitutional review process has entered a critical phase. After public hearings concluded across the six zones, a joint retreat between the Senate, House of Representatives, and state assembly speakers was planned for September 2025, with plenary debate and voting scheduled for October [1].

But the path to any constitutional change remains daunting. The requirement for two-thirds majorities in both chambers and ratification by 24 of 36 state assemblies means that any proposal — especially one as divisive as regional government — faces enormous procedural hurdles. Northern state assemblies, which control a blocking minority, are unlikely to ratify a proposal perceived as threatening their access to federal revenues.

Professor Azubike Chinwuba Onuora-Oguno, a Nigerian constitutional scholar, has described the current moment as potentially either "genuine transformation" or "another missed opportunity" — depending on the integrity of the process and the degree of public mobilization behind it [1].

What is clear is that the status quo is increasingly untenable. With a collapsing currency, runaway inflation, deepening poverty, and security crises stretching from the insurgency-ravaged northeast to the bandit-infested northwest, Nigerians are demanding fundamental change. Whether that change takes the form of a return to the regional system of the First Republic, a more modest devolution of powers, or simply better governance within the existing framework remains the defining question of Nigeria's current political era.

The answer will shape not just Nigeria's future, but that of the entire African continent. As the most populous Black nation on Earth and a bellwether for democratic governance in West Africa, how Nigeria resolves its constitutional crisis will reverberate far beyond its borders.