Nigeria is, recently, enmeshed in a heated public debate regarding the restoration of regional governments following the presentation of a proposed Bill at the National Assembly seeking for an Act to substitute the Annexure to Decree 24 of 1999 with a new governance model for the country. This debate stems from the desire to address issues of power distribution, resource allocation, ethnic tensions, and the overall governance structure of the country. While proponents argue that regional governments would foster development, enhance local autonomy, and promote unity, opponents express concerns over the potential for increased regional disparities, ethnic rivalries, and the erosion of national unity. This essay will delve into the arguments and counterarguments, highlighting the key issues surrounding the restoration of regional governments in Nigeria.
Following independence from British colonial rule in 1960, Nigeria adopted a regional governance structure, consisting of three regions: Northern, Western, and Eastern. Each region had its own government and considerable autonomy over its affairs. However, the military coup of 1966 and subsequent political upheavals led to the centralization of power at the federal level, marking the demise of regional governments.
Those advocating for the restoration of regional governments argue that it would address several key issues. Firstly, they contend that regional governments would promote development by allowing regions to harness their unique resources and focus on their specific needs and strengths. For instance, regions abundant in agricultural resources could prioritize agricultural development, while regions with oil reserves could concentrate on the oil sector. This localization of governance is believed to facilitate targeted development plans and improve overall economic growth.
Secondly, proponents argue that regional governments would enhance local autonomy, allowing regions to make decisions that align with their cultural, social, and economic realities. This decentralization of power could help foster a sense of ownership and participation among citizens, leading to increased accountability and effective governance.
Thirdly, proponents also claim that regional governments could mitigate ethnic tensions by providing a platform for ethnic groups to address their concerns and protect their interests. By granting regions more control over their affairs, it is believed that ethnic minorities would have a greater say in decision-making processes, reducing feelings of marginalization and fostering inclusivity.
Despite the arguments in favour of regional governments, opponents raise several concerns. One of the major concerns is the potential for increased regional disparities. Critics argue that regions with fewer resources or economic opportunities might struggle to compete with more prosperous regions. This could exacerbate inequality, leading to economic imbalances and social unrest.
Another concern is the possibility of heightened ethnic rivalries and conflicts. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation with a history of civil war, ethnic conflicts and tensions. Opponents argue that regional governments could exacerbate these tensions as regions may prioritize the interests of their dominant ethnic groups, potentially leading to inter-regional conflicts and a weakening of national unity.
Furthermore, critics express concerns over the administrative challenges associated with the restoration of regional governments. Reestablishing functional regional governments would require huge structural changes, significant resources and infrastructure. Critics argue that these resources could be better utilized in addressing other pressing issues, such as poverty, food security, corruption, and inadequate public services.
As the nation braces up for a likely heated debate on this matter, finding a middle ground is crucial for Nigeria’s future stability and progress. A potential solution could involve a hybrid model that combines regional autonomy with a strong federal government. This model would grant regions significant decision-making powers while ensuring that national interests and unity are preserved.
Additionally, it is essential to address the concerns of opponents and adopt measures to mitigate potential disparities and ethnic conflicts. This can be achieved through the implementation of robust constitutional safeguards, mechanisms for revenue sharing, and the promotion of inclusivity in regional governance structures.
After thoroughly analyzing the pros and cons of this issue, I feel the restoration of regional governments, could only be plausible if equity and fairness will be the guiding principles. For instance, the equity ratio of representation in the National Assembly suggests volumes of the present structure’s lopsidedness. For example, the South-west region has 6 states, a total of 88 federal lawmakers (18 senators, 70 reps) with a population of 38.9 million and land size of 30,948 square miles. Each lawmaker represents approximately 442,045 people in the whole of South-west.
Whereas the south-east region has 5 states, a total of 58 federal lawmakers (43 reps, 15 senators) with a population of 21.9 million and land size of 14,031 square miles. Each lawmaker represents approximately 377,586 people in the whole of the south-east region.
Similarly, the south-south region has 6 states with a total of 73 federal lawmakers, (18 senators, 55 reps) and population of 28.1 million people as well as a land mass of 33,337 square miles. Each lawmaker represents approximately 384,932 people in the south-south region.
The North-east region equally has 6 states, 67 lawmakers (18 senators, 49 reps) and population size of 27.9 million people with land size of 105,193 square miles. Each lawmaker represents approximately 416,417 people in the North-east region.
In the same vein, the North-central region has 6 states, 66 federal lawmakers and a population of 26.5 million. The land size of the region is 90,444 square miles. Ea lawmaker represents approximately 401,515 people in the North-central region.
The North-west region has 7 states with 104 federal lawmakers (21 senators, 83 reps) and a population size of 54.8 million. The land size of the region is 83,415 square miles. Each lawmaker represents approximately 526,923 people in the entire North-west region.
From the foregoing data, the south-east is the region whose people have the highest representation at the National Assembly, while the North-west is the region whose people have the least representation. This includes several other anomalies in the nation’s body polity that require quick redress.
