For the umpteenth time, the Nigerian Constitution is undergoing review, having been bugged down by series of criticisms. In this analysis, TUNDE OYESINA examines the issues and the challenges ahead
In Nigeria’s chequered constitutional journey, the 1999 Constitution, bequeathed by the military, has remained a subject of national contention. Twenty-six years into the Fourth Republic, there is a growing clamour that the current constitution no longer reflects the aspirations, federal structure, and democratic ideals envisioned by Nigerians.
Against this backdrop, the National Assembly’s ongoing constitutional review is again under public scrutiny—both welcomed as timely and criticized as inadequate. Besides, some eminent Nigerians have also examined the constitution and come up with their observations.
Constitution in question
Since its promulgation in 1999, the Nigerian Constitution has been criticized for being elitist, military in origin, and disconnected from the will of the people. Though several amendments have been made—such as the Not Too Young To Run Act and reforms on electoral processes—the more fundamental issues of restructuring, state policing, fiscal federalism, and local government autonomy remain largely unresolved.
The ongoing review, initiated by the 10th National Assembly, aims to address some of these long-standing issues. The process has included zonal public hearings, stakeholder engagements, and memorandum calls from citizens, civil society groups, and professional bodies like the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Importance of Constitutional Review
The most persistent criticism of the 1999 Constitution is that it does not emanate from “We the people.” Rather, it was a military decree disguised as a democratic charter.
“You cannot operate a true democracy on a constitution imposed by fiat,” said Femi Falana (SAN). A people’s constitution must reflect the aspirations and consent of the governed.”
Nigeria operates a federal system in theory but a unitary system in practice. Most states depend on federal allocations, while the central government controls resources, security, and even basic policymaking.
Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said that, “True federalism is the bedrock of national stability. Without resource control, state policing, and devolution of powers, this country is merely federal in name.”
Another key focus of the review is electoral reform—especially giving constitutional status to technologies like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV). These innovations were used in the 2023 elections but are not yet backed by constitutional provisions.
According to Wahab Shittu SAN , “We must embed these digital reforms into the constitution to prevent future manipulation or reversal. “\Otherwise, we risk sliding backward in electoral transparency.”
Areas targeted in the review
One of the most contentious proposals is the creation of state police forces. Proponents argue that security challenges like banditry, kidnapping, and terrorism require local intelligence and rapid response systems.
According to Yusuf Ali SAN, “No country this size and complexity can be effectively policed from the center. The fear of abuse is valid but solvable through proper legal safeguards.”
Nigeria’s third tier of government remains weak and often manipulated by state governors. The constitutional review seeks to grant full financial and administrative autonomy to local governments.
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN once argued that “Without real autonomy, local governments will continue to serve as cash cows and political pawns. We need a constitutional shield for grassroots democracy.”
Another target is the reallocation of taxing powers and resource control. Oil-producing states have long demanded more control over their resources and derivation formulas.
Another SAN, M.O Ndarani noted that , “Resource control and revenue sharing should reflect contribution, not just population. “Otherwise, the current system will continue to breed resentment and underdevelopment.”
There is also an attempt to streamline the judicial appointment process, reduce delays in litigation, and enhance the independence of oversight institutions like the EFCC and ICPC.
Paul Ananaba SAN submitted that , “Judicial reform must ensure not just independence but efficiency. We cannot have justice delayed and claim to uphold the rule of law.”
Challenges to the constitutional review process
Many Nigerians believe that the National Assembly is only interested in cosmetic amendments and will not tamper with core issues like restructuring or fiscal federalism.
Prof. Akin Oyebode, a renowned constitutional scholar, said, “The review is useful only if done in good faith. If it becomes a smokescreen for political maneuvering, it will further erode public confidence.”
There are fears that political interests may override public interest. For instance, state governors may resist local government autonomy or state policing due to fear of losing control.
Although the National Assembly has conducted public hearings, critics argue that the process has not sufficiently educated or mobilized the general populace.
The NBA has been vocal in advocating for a people-oriented constitution. Through its Constitutional Review Committee, the Association has made several submissions.
Despite several past constitutional amendments, very little has changed structurally in Nigeria.
A growing number of lawyers advocate for an entirely new constitution, created through a national conference or referendum. Passing reforms is one thing; implementing them is another. Many legal reforms exist only on paper due to poor enforcement and lack of political will.
Lawyers react
.He however criticised past amendment cycles (five since 1999) for costing ₦12.85 billion with minimal impact, urging a brand-new constitution rather than piecemeal fixes.
He consequently called for truly inclusive public participation, national dialogue, and a referendum for legitimacy.
A Constitutional law lecturer , Dr. Abdul Yahaya calls for drafting a new constitution that makes Chapter II (social rights) enforceable rather than symbolic.
He however was against merely “decorating” the constitution without addressing local government autonomy, fiscal federalism, and implementation mechanisms.
“The 1999 Constitution a “fraud,” “fake document” and essentially unitary in a federal guise.
“Only a new people-driven constitution can deliver meaningful federalism and address systemic inequality”.
Human Rights lawyer and Convener of “Know Your Right” , Benson Ohanaka submitted that , ” the exercise is a waste of time and money, largely because previous amendments failed to produce real change.
” Many favor a national conference and new constitution instead. To me , this review is “futile,” aimed more at pacifying agitation than delivering restructuring.
“It may not likely solve the myriads of problems facing the country, at least in its current form.
“Multiple past constitutional amendments (since 1999) failed to resolve core governance issues—issues like devolution, state policing, local government autonomy, and judicial independence remain largely unaddressed.
“The review is still structured within the 1999 Constitution framework. It is fundamentally flawed and lacking in democratic legitimacy.
“Without a broader national dialogue, referendum, and inclusive process, the outcome risks being another “elite-driven” exercise with limited public buy‑in”.
