“True federalism” is one of the most repeated expressions in Nigerian public life, yet it is also one of the most misunderstood. Politicians use it in campaign speeches, regional leaders invoke it in constitutional debates, and citizens often repeat it as a solution to national frustration. But beyond the slogan, the phrase has a precise historical and constitutional meaning in the Nigerian context. It points to the belief that although Nigeria is formally described as a federation, too much real authority remains concentrated at the centre.
That complaint is rooted in Nigerian constitutional history, in the transformation of the country under military rule, and in the long argument over resource control, taxation, infrastructure, internal security and local political responsibility. To understand what true federalism would mean in Nigeria today, it is necessary to return to the structure of the federation as it once existed, and to examine how that structure changed over time.
Nigeria’s early federal system was more decentralised
Nigeria did not begin as the highly centralised federation many critics describe today. Under the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, and later under the Independence Constitution of 1960 and the Republican Constitution of 1963, the regions exercised substantial authority. The old regional order gave significant room for policy initiative, economic planning and political competition. In practical terms, the regions had more control over their internal affairs than states do under the present system.
That earlier arrangement was not free from tension. It was marked by regional rivalry, minority fears and fierce competition among the major political blocs. Even so, it remained more decentralised than the constitutional order that followed military intervention. The regions were not merely waiting for direction from the centre. They operated with real political weight and enjoyed wider fiscal and administrative space.
This older federal tradition remains important because it explains why many contemporary advocates of restructuring speak of restoring substance to the federation, rather than inventing something entirely new.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
Military rule changed the balance of the federation
The decisive shift came during the long period of military rule. Military governments reorganised the country through command structures that were central in spirit and operation. They created states, absorbed more authority into the centre, and expanded federal control over key areas of national life.
When civilian rule returned, first in 1979 and later in 1999, the centralising habits of military administration remained embedded in the constitutional order. Nigeria retained the language of federalism, but the structure of power had changed significantly. The result was a federation in which states existed, but where many of the most important powers, revenues and legal competences remained controlled by the federal centre.
That legacy is still visible today. It shapes how revenue is shared, how many sectors are regulated, and how much room states have to act independently.
The 1999 Constitution sits at the centre of the debate
The modern debate over true federalism cannot be separated from the 1999 Constitution, as altered. That Constitution provides the legal backbone of the present order.
A major issue is the Exclusive Legislative List, which places a broad range of important subjects under federal control. When the centre controls many strategic areas, state governments become narrower in function and weaker in practice. Even where both federal and state governments can act, federal law remains dominant where conflict arises.
The fiscal structure reinforces that same reality. Section 162 of the Constitution establishes the Federation Account and preserves the derivation principle at not less than 13 percent of revenue accruing directly from natural resources. This provision gives oil producing states a constitutionally recognised share, but it does not amount to full resource control.
In effect, the Constitution recognises derivation within a framework where the centre still controls the larger fiscal structure. That is why resource control remains one of the most debated issues in Nigeria’s federal system.
What true federalism would mean in practical terms
In Nigeria today, true federalism would mean more than merely repeating constitutional vocabulary. It would require a redistribution of authority, responsibility and fiscal capacity.
First, it would mean greater state autonomy in law and administration. More powers would need to move away from the Exclusive List so that states could legislate and implement policy with less dependence on the centre.
Second, it would mean deeper fiscal federalism. States would need stronger internal revenue powers and a greater connection between what they generate and what they spend.
Third, it would mean a more balanced approach to resource governance. Producing areas would have a stronger stake and a more meaningful share in the value derived from their resources, within a constitutionally defined framework.
Fourth, it would mean greater responsibility for state governments. A more devolved federation would expose states to more public scrutiny and demand stronger governance at the local level.
The 2023 amendments showed that devolution is possible
In 2023, constitutional alteration acts moved railways from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List and broadened the scope of state action in electricity, including in areas previously limited by the national grid restriction.
These changes demonstrated that constitutional adjustment is possible within the existing framework. They also showed that sectors once tightly controlled at the centre can be opened up through formal amendment.
The lesson is clear. Changes to the federal balance come through specific legal reforms that define how power is shared and exercised.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
What true federalism does not mean
True federalism does not mean that Nigeria would stop being one country. It concerns how power is distributed within the federation.
It does not guarantee an end to corruption or inefficiency. Stronger state powers must be matched with stronger institutions and accountability.
It also does not represent a single agreed model. Different visions of restructuring exist, but they share a common concern about the present concentration of authority.
Why the question remains important
The question of true federalism goes to the heart of governance in Nigeria. It addresses who controls power, who manages resources, and who is responsible for development outcomes.
The current structure has encouraged dependence on the centre, while also generating complaints about central dominance. A more balanced federation would distribute both power and responsibility more evenly.
For many Nigerians, true federalism represents a system in which states function with clearer authority, clearer duties and stronger accountability to their people.
Author’s Note
The story of federalism in Nigeria is ultimately a story about balance and responsibility. A federation becomes meaningful when power is shared in ways that allow each part of the country to act, grow and be held accountable. The real value of true federalism lies not only in reducing central control, but in creating a system where governance is closer to the people and where every level of leadership carries its full share of responsibility.
References
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 Fifth Alteration No. 16 Act, 2023.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 Fifth Alteration No. 17 Act, 2023.
J. Isawa Elaigwu, Federalism in Nigeria’s New Democratic Polity.
Rotimi T. Suberu, Nigeria After Military Rule, Federalism, Resource Allocation and Political Stability.
Rotimi T. Suberu, writings on Nigerian federalism and centralisation.
