The Making of a Symbolic Head of State
When Nigeria became a republic in 1963, the moment was celebrated as the final step in ending colonial rule. The British monarch was removed as Head of State, and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe assumed office as the country’s first President. To many Nigerians, this transition appeared to complete the independence project. Azikiwe, widely known as “Zik of Africa”, had been the most recognisable figure of the nationalist struggle.
Behind the symbolism, however, power remained firmly elsewhere.
Nigeria retained the Westminster parliamentary system inherited at independence. The presidency replaced the office of Governor-General, but its functions remained largely unchanged. Executive authority continued to rest with the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council. The President was expected to act on ministerial advice and to remain above partisan politics.
This arrangement created a critical imbalance. Nigeria now had a Head of State with enormous prestige but almost no political authority, at a time when the federation was becoming increasingly unstable.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
The Republican Constitution and Its Limits
The 1963 Republican Constitution prioritised continuity over reform. It did not create a strong presidency. Instead, it reinforced parliamentary supremacy and limited the President to ceremonial responsibilities such as assenting to legislation, appointing officials on advice, and representing the country internationally.
This structure assumed political maturity, institutional discipline, and mutual trust among elites. In reality, Nigerian politics was defined by intense regional competition, weak electoral credibility, and deep suspicion between political blocs.
Without an empowered neutral authority at the centre, political disputes escalated rather than being resolved.
From Nationalist Firebrand to Constitutional Figurehead
Azikiwe’s presidency marked a sharp contrast with his earlier political life. In the 1940s and 1950s, he was a radical nationalist who used journalism and mass mobilisation to challenge colonial authority. His speeches and writings emphasised unity, modernity, and African self-confidence.
As President, Azikiwe adopted a restrained posture. He treated the office as a symbol of unity rather than an instrument of political intervention. This approach reflected a commitment to constitutional boundaries, but it also left the federation without a stabilising authority when political conflict intensified.
Neutrality in a Distrustful Federation
Although the presidency was intended to be non-partisan, Azikiwe’s long association with the National Council of Nigerian Citizens shaped how other political actors perceived him. Leaders within the Northern People’s Congress and the Action Group often viewed national decisions through regional suspicion rather than institutional trust.
In such an atmosphere, neutrality was difficult to establish. The presidency lacked both the authority to compel compliance and the confidence of all regions to act as an effective mediator.
The Western Region Crisis
The Western Region crisis exposed the weaknesses of Nigeria’s political system. Internal divisions within the Action Group escalated into legislative paralysis and widespread violence. Federal intervention followed, culminating in a state of emergency that suspended democratic governance in the region.
Azikiwe’s role in the episode was procedural. Acting on federal advice, he approved the emergency measures. The presidency did not initiate the intervention and lacked the authority to reshape its course.
To the wider public, the crisis reinforced a troubling reality. The President could legitimise extraordinary actions, but could not restrain their political consequences.
Elections Without Legitimacy
The federal elections of 1964 deepened Nigeria’s political paralysis. Boycotts, disputed results, and administrative breakdown eroded public confidence in the democratic process. The country faced the possibility of a constitutional vacuum.
Azikiwe responded by prioritising continuity. He invited the incumbent Prime Minister to form a government in line with constitutional convention. This preserved formal order, but it did little to restore public trust.
The gap between constitutional procedure and democratic legitimacy widened, weakening civilian authority further.
Power Concentrated, Accountability Weakened
By the mid-1960s, Nigeria’s First Republic was characterised by structural imbalance. Executive power was heavily concentrated, checks and balances were ineffective, and political competition was driven by regional survival rather than national cohesion.
The presidency, as designed, could not correct these flaws. It lacked enforcement power, independent discretion, and institutional backing. What remained was a symbolic office presiding over a system it could not control.
From Paralysis to Collapse
The military coup of January 1966 was the result of prolonged political breakdown. Years of unresolved conflict, electoral illegitimacy, and institutional decay had stripped civilian rule of credibility.
Azikiwe was abroad when the coup occurred. His absence reflected the reality of the presidency itself: present in form, but absent in power.
The First Republic collapsed not because it lacked respected leaders, but because its institutions could not manage conflict within a divided federation.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
A Presidency That Revealed the System’s Failure
Azikiwe’s presidency remains one of the most revealing episodes in Nigeria’s political history. It showed that national prestige cannot substitute for constitutional authority, and that symbolism alone cannot stabilise a fragile democracy.
The office he occupied exposed the limits of Nigeria’s early constitutional design and the dangers of adopting political systems without adapting them to local realities.
Author’s Note
Azikiwe’s presidency demonstrates that leadership cannot compensate for weak institutions. Nigeria’s First Republic collapsed because power was poorly balanced, accountability was fragile, and conflict went unmanaged. The ceremonial presidency symbolised unity, but it lacked the authority required to protect democracy when it was most under threat.
References
Sklar, R. L., Nigerian Political Parties: Power in an Emergent African Nation
Falola, T. and Heaton, M., A History of Nigeria
Siollun, M., Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture
