Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) is a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Senior Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL). In this interview with select journalists, he speaks on some national issues., SUCCESS NWOGU was there
There are concerns about President Bola Tinubu traveling abroad without transmitting power to Vice President Kashim Shettima. Is that constitutional?
Constitutionally, he ought to hand over power. That’s what the constitution says. But I understand that he’s on a working visit to France.
But if you ask me, these are things that I would say, given the experience going back to the time of a former president of Nigeria who is now late, Umaru Yar’Adua.
I wouldn’t do things that would create suspicion or doubt or controversy. I would give my advice to President Tinubu that if he is going abroad for two weeks or three weeks, there’s nothing difficult in saying I’m handing over power to the vicepresident.
The sole administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd), contrary to a court order, has appointed local government administrators. Is that not inappropriate?
The issue of reverse is very unfortunate and I think it strikes at what is the whole concept of the way Nigeria is structured. And so, whether the sole administrator is right or wrong to appoint or even spend money other than what he ought to spend, because he’s only an emergency person, is actually not the problem.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not the problem. The problem is that Nigeria is running on the wrong constitutional framework.
That’s what I would like to say. I would like to see Nigeria disrupted. I don’t understand why every politician that comes accepts the need to politically reconfigure Nigeria, restructure, devolve powers, but when they get there, they don’t do it. That’s what beats me. So, we need to have a major political revolution.
It’s the only way Nigeria will work. Nigeria can’t work with this pyramid of a country, where everything is centred. And that’s why you have this form of democracy. Everyone is fighting for power at the centre.
And you find Nyesom Wike of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in an All Progressives Congress (APC) government. That alone tells you about the contradictions. If you ask about three million people in River State, they have no interest in PDP or APC.
They have an interest in their health, in their schools, and that’s not happening. So, they’re not happy with anybody. If you think they’re happy, they’re not happy with anybody.
In fact, I’m happy you asked that question because it’s the Rivers example that defines Nigeria’s problem, where the leaders in power fail to understand the concerns of the people.
Generally, how would you assess the state of the nation at the moment?
We can talk about what’s happening in our country. It’s very challenging. There’s good and bad news actually. The good news may be somewhat surprising but I don’t want it to be misinterpreted.
So, let me be very careful to say that it does seem as if some of the structural problems concerned with the issue of devaluation and fuel subsidy is beginning to have an impact positively but not sufficient to make an impact on the streets and I’ve always said there’s a difference between what the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) is saying and what Mr. A is saying.
A man who has a high blood pressure reading of 160 over 120 is very critical, and if the doctor tells him, when it comes down to 140 over 100, it’s good news but it’s still critical.
So, that sums up Nigeria’s position. There’s no question that with the adjustments, you see the problem why these adjustments are good even though we have to ask where are the savings from the fuel subsidy going, but what is what we call a correction.
A correction is when you are going in a particular direction and you know that is not the correct direction and you turn around. So, there’s nobody that can dispute that removal of fuel subsidy was not in the right direction because only a few benefited. But the big question would therefore be:
Where is the saving going to? If it’s going to social institutions, hospitals, school fees for you know those who need it, that’s a good idea but clearly, it’s a good thing that it is happening and I think it’s reflecting in pricing. Fuel prices are not yet good.
They can be at N100, N200 but it’s certainly not N1,200. Food prices are high and stable, but not as before. So, if this is possible, why is it not possible to achieve more success?
What really are some of the challenges of the country?
Nigeria faces challenges that include corruption that diverts public resources for private gain, over-centralization of power that limits local initiative and accountability; over-reliance on oil revenue that creates economic vulnerability and encourages rent
The current federal structure of Nigeria is excessively centralised, concentrating power and resources at the federal level, while limiting the autonomy and capacity of states and local governments
seeking, and weak property rights that limit investment and entrepreneurship. Understanding this theoretical framework is crucial for developing effective strategies to transform Nigeria’s economy.
The reforms should aim to replace extractive institutions with inclusive ones, creating the foundation for sustainable economic growth and development. The fundamentals for stronger growth exist; a growing services sector, increased investor confidence and initial fiscal reforms.
What Nigeria requires now is a comprehensive strategy that builds on these positive developments, while addressing structural constraints.
The economic indicators show potential for much more significant growth if the right policies are implemented with decisive leadership and at the necessary speed.
Unlocking Nigeria’s vast economic potential lies in transformative rather than incremental reforms, reforms that can accelerate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth beyond current projections, dramatically increase revenue generation, and create inclusive prosperity that benefits all Nigerians, not just a privileged few.
What should be done on the governance architecture of the country?
Effective governance and strong institutions form the bedrock of economic development. Nigeria requires comprehensive reforms in this area to create the enabling environment for economic transformation. Central to this transformation is the fundamental reimagining of Nigeria’s governance architecture.
The current over-centralization of power creates bottlenecks, encourages rent-seeking, and stifles local initiative. However, before addressing structural reforms, we must confront a more fundamental challenge; establishing political order and national unity as the foundation for all other governance reforms.
The International Index of failed states classifies Nigeria as being in a low-grade civil war. Insecurity, conflict, and agitation are pervasive throughout the country, with groups such as Boko Haram, IPOB, Niger Delta militants, Fulani herdsmen, bandits, and kidnappers causing chaos and disorder.
Nigeria cannot achieve economic development without first establishing peace, order and unity. National order is the process or system by which a nation secures its peace, and once established, transformational development can occur. Since 1914, Nigeria has had a political structure imposed upon it without any agreement on the nature of the political union.
It is vital that the government facilitates an agreement on political arrangements that will work for the country. This requires answering critical questions posed by Rev. Father Anthony Akinwale and late Chief Bola Ige: Are we a country, state, or nation? Do we intend to live together as one country?
Once these questions are answered; it will set the stage for a new political arrangement that can be articulated in a new constitution. One viable alternative might be engaging leaders of sub-national ethnicities such as Ohanaeze, Arewa, Afenifere and Middle Belt Forum, among others. These leaders have national appeal and can provide a feasible alternative for a new political order.
The National Assembly has the power to do this under Section 4(2) of the Constitution, which empowers it to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the federation. With a foundation of political order and national unity established, the next critical step in Nigeria’s governance transformation is addressing the imbalanced power structure through meaningful devolution of powers.
How should the devolution of powers go?
The current federal structure of Nigeria is excessively centralized, concentrating power and resources at the federal level, while limiting the autonomy and capacity of states and local governments. This arrangement has proven inefficient and has contributed to poor governance outcomes across the country.
A meaningful restructuring must address three key issues; what are the federating units, how to ensure fair fiscal federalism and revenue sharing, and how to ensure that power rotates fairly and inclusively. On federating units, George Anderson, in his book “Federalism:
An Introduction” explains that federations are products of unique historical processes and can vary greatly in structure, ranging from as few as two federating units to over 80. Nigeria’s federating units have evolved to reflect its diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural landscape.
Three distinct models present viable options for Nigeria’s restructuring. In Model 1 (Zones as Federating Units), the six geopolitical zones (North Central, North-East, North-West, South-East, South-South and South-West) would become the primary federating units.
These zones broadly accommodate Nigeria’s diversity, though not perfectly as they contain unequal numbers of states. Each zone would have the autonomy to create its internal states and local governments as needed, creating a more flexible system responsive to regional needs
In Model 2 (Enhanced State Federation), the current 36 states would remain as federating units, but with constitutional measures to ensure greater equality among states within each zone.
The geopolitical zones would be formally recognized in the constitution and granted powers to pass regional legislation and establish shared political, economic, and judicial institutions, creating a more cooperative federal system. Model 3 (Mixed Approach) would recognise both the zones and states as federating units, creating a two-tier federal structure.
Additionally, it would provide special status to certain areas of national significance such as major cities with federal importance and create special protections for minority groups that might otherwise lack adequate representation in either zone or state governance structures.
On fiscal federalism, Nigeria’s current arrangement is extremely centralized. The Federal Government collects at least 97 per cent of revenues, making it one of the most centralized federations globally. Most federal systems collect between 50 to 75 per cent of revenues at the central level.
Nigeria needs to create a better balance by allowing states greater control over natural resources in their domain. The current constitutional distribution of legislative power heavily favours the Federal Government, which exercises exclusive authority over 68 items and shares jurisdiction with states over 30 concurrent items.
In practice, states may exercise power on the concurrent list only if the Federal Government has not already ‘covered the field’ in any of those areas. This effectively leaves state governments with very limited actual power. Massive devolution of powers from the federal to state governments is vital, with two distinct types of devolution to consider – political and technical.
Technical devolution presents fewer challenges to implement, as few would dispute that states are better positioned to manage drivers’ licenses, intrastate trade, prisons, marriage certificates, primary healthcare, education, and similar matters than the Federal Government.
More politically sensitive matters like state policing might be addressed through the principle of Cooperative Federalism, with shared or joint power arrangements between federal and state governments.
For example, municipal policing could be established at the state level, while streamlining the federal police force within a shared power framework. Equally important is empowering local governments as the foundation of the federal structure through the principle of subsidiarity, ensuring that governance is delivered at the lowest practical level.
Here, I commend President Tinubu’s enforcing of Section 7 of the Constitution, which guarantees financial autonomy for local governments and establishes democratically elected governance at the local level. Local government is critical because most citizens live at this level, and building capacity here is essential for effectively addressing primary healthcare, education, and other local concerns.
What about constitutional reform?
That is necessary. Closely connected with devolution of powers is constitutional reform. The 1999 Constitution lacks popular acceptance because it was imposed by the military.
The current model of piecemeal constitutional amendment has proven ineffective, taking far too long (over 20 years) and failing to win popular and legitimate acceptance. Prof. Ben Nwabueze in his paper:
“Legal Authority for the Convening and Holding of a National Conference and for the Making of a People’s Constitution,” suggests a more pragmatic option: wholesale constitutional replacement through the National Assembly’s sovereign authority under Section 4(1) of the Constitution. Prof. Nwabueze distinguishes between two types of constitutions – sovereign and statutory.
A sovereign constitution is one written by the people through a Sovereign National Conference, while a statutory constitution is made by an Act of a sovereign parliament.
Nigeria has historically had statutory constitutions created by the sovereign parliament. The 1960, 1963, 1979 and 1999 constitutions were schedules to an Act of parliament. The 1960 Independence Constitution, for instance, was established by way of a Schedule to an Order-in-Council made by the British Government.
The 1963 Republican Parliament replaced the 1960 Independence Constitution by simply changing the schedules. All parliament did was to repeal the Order-in Council made by the Queen of England and replace it with a brand new Republican Constitution.
The 1999 Constitution is a schedule to Decree No. 24 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Promulgation) Decree 1999. According to this approach, the National Assembly can repeal the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Promulgation) Decree 1999 and replace it with a new constitution.
This power derives from sections 4(1) and 315(1)(a) & (4) of the 1999 Constitution, which vest the legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the National Assembly. What should be some of the provisions of the new constitution? This new constitution should provide a clause that strengthens.
It does seem as if some of the structural problems concerned with the issue of devaluation and fuel subsidy is beginning to have an impact positively but not sufficient to make an impact on the streets
Institutions that consolidate democracy. Institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Police, Independent Corrupt Practises and other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC), Accountant General, National Judicial Council, Attorney General, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Human Rights Commission, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Public Defender and Code of Conduct Bureau, among others.
We can copy Chapter 9 of the Constitution of South Africa, titled “Institutions Consolidating Democracy,” which guarantees independence and effective functioning of national institutions.
Many stakeholders have advocated electoral reforms….
Electoral reform and democratic consolidation are very important. Nigeria’s democratic architecture requires fundamental transformation beyond mere procedural adjustments.
The current electoral system suffers from structural weaknesses that undermine public confidence and democratic legitimacy. At the centre of these challenges lies the INEC, whose operational constraints have become a significant impediment to electoral integrity.
INEC’s mandate has expanded far beyond its operational capacity, encompassing everything from voter registration and boundary delimitation to political party regulation and election logistics. This institutional overreach has compromised its effectiveness in its primary function: conducting credible elections.
The Justice Uwais Committee’s 2008 recommendations offer a practical blueprint for reform, proposing the unbundling of INEC into specialized agencies with focused mandates, strengthening its neutrality in election disputes, and revolutionizing appointment processes to enhance independence.
Comprehensive electoral reform must extend beyond INEC to encompass the entire democratic ecosystem. Campaign financing requires stringent regulation to prevent plutocratic capture of the political process. Voting accessibility demands technological and procedural innovations that maintain integrity, while expanding participation.
Dispute resolution mechanisms need restructuring to deliver timely, consistent adjudication that commands public confidence. Political parties; currently functioning as personality vehicles rather than ideological institutions, require regulatory frameworks that promote internal democracy, programmatic politics and sustainable organisational structures.
Constitutional protections for opposition functions would institutionalize democratic checks and balances, ensuring robust policy alternatives and governmental accountability between elections. A vibrant democracy depends equally on enabling institutions outside government.
Media independence requires constitutional shields against political interference and regulatory frameworks that prevent unhealthy concentration of ownership.
Digital platforms need governance frameworks that protect expression while combating disinformation. Civil society organisations must be empowered through protective legislation, financing incentives, and formal consultation mechanisms that amplify citizen voices in governance processes.
Is there also need to reform the public service?
Nigeria’s public service demands urgent comprehensive reform to enhance efficiency and dramatically reduce governance costs.
The landmark Oronsaye Report, which recommended consolidating or eliminating 220 of the existing 541 government agencies, offers a clear roadmap for transformation that could generate trillions in savings by 2025, far exceeding the original estimate of ₦862 billion projected for 2012-2015.
Despite the current administration’s stated commitment to implement these recommendations, progress has been disappointingly slow, highlighting the need for greater political will and decisive action. The reform blueprint includes strategic agency consolidations.
For example, merging the Infrastructure Concession and Regulatory Commission (ICRC) with the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE) to create a unified approach to privatization and infrastructure development; combining the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) with the National Commission for Refugees (NCF) to streamline disaster response and humanitarian services.
Consolidating the fragmented media landscape by unifying the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN), and Voice of Nigeria (VON) into a cohesive public broadcasting service; and abolishing 38 redundant federal agencies, including the Public Complaints Commission and National Poverty Eradication Programme whose functions can be more efficiently managed by existing institutions.
At its philosophical core, this reform requires a fundamental redefinition of government’s role, shifting from direct business involvement to focusing on its essential functions of policy formulation, execution, and effective regulation.
This principle-based approach would curb the government’s tendency to create agencies as political solutions rather than addressing functional needs, thereby fostering a leaner, more responsive public service.
The reform agenda must also critically examine colonial and military governance legacies, particularly the overlapping responsibilities between the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and Head of Service (HOS), which create bureaucratic bottlenecks and administrative inefficiencies.
Drawing inspiration from international best practices, Nigeria should consider streamlining its approximately 50 ministries to a more manageable structure comparable to the United States; 17-18 cabinet departments – creating clearer lines of authority, reducing administrative overhead, and enabling more cohesive policy implementation across government.
Through these decisive reforms, Nigeria can build a public service that serves as an enabler rather than an impediment to national development.
