.
BY: A G Abubakar

Nigeria has a long and complicated history of stepping back from the brink. From the constitutional conferences of the 1940s and 1950s that birthed the country, to the Western Region crisis dubbed “Operation Wetie” or “Wild Wild West,” which peaked in 1964, the military coup of 1966, and the devastating three-year civil war, the nation has repeatedly endured moments that threatened its continued existence.

The cycle did not end there. The fierce debates over Sharia during the 1979 constitutional process, the Maitatsine uprisings in Northern Nigeria in the early 80s, the proclamation of Shari’a law by 12 Northern states in 2000/2001, the recurring ethno-religious crises in the Middle Belt, the Niger Delta militancy, and the current insurgency and banditry ravaging large parts of the North have all tested the resilience of the Nigerian state. Yet, despite these storms, Nigeria somehow endured. A case of a cat with nine lives.

Today, however, the situation appears fundamentally different. The danger lies not merely in the complexity of the crisis, but in the perceived sincerity of the government in power. A government with a regional agenda inherited a vulnerable country confronted by deep political, economic, and social fractures, with its security architecture weaker than at any other point in recent history. Years of declining combat effectiveness, institutional decay, corruption, poor coordination, and political interference have significantly weakened both the military and paramilitary establishments. Across vast stretches of the country, citizens increasingly feel abandoned to terrorists, kidnappers, bandits, separatists, and violent criminal networks. This is as the government seemingly looks on helplessly.

What once appeared impossible now seems conceivable: maybe a welcome development for advocates of restructuring, and/or what separatist movements failed to achieve through decades of conferences, negotiations, constitutional advocacy, and political bargaining may now emerge naturally through the weakening of the federation itself. And maybe, too, a welcome opportunity for a national implosion for those who have been yearning for a nation of their own to have their way.

Since independence, Nigeria’s fragile unity has rested on the invisible hands of regional comparative advantage. The South, particularly the South West, dominated the economy, bureaucracy, commerce, and educational advancement, while the North — owing largely to its demographic strength and military influence — maintained some form of higher political visibility, aside from constituting a huge consumer base for industrial production mostly based in the South.

Whether that advantage was effectively utilised is another debate entirely. What remains undeniable is that it generated deep resentment in parts of Southern Nigeria. Over time, demands for restructuring, resource control, regional autonomy, and even outright secession became recurring political themes.

The agitation intensified dramatically after General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the June 12, 1993 presidential election widely believed to have been won by Chief MKO Abiola. From that moment onward, the campaign against what many perceived as “Northern domination” became more coordinated, ideological, and relentless. Successive political actors adopted different strategies to weaken the North’s traditional hold on national power.

President Olusegun Obasanjo arguably initiated the first major institutional attrition against the Northern political establishment. Under the guise of professionalising the military and preventing future coups, many senior Northern military officers with political influence were systematically retired or sidelined.

That process significantly weakened the military-political network that had historically sustained Northern influence within the federation. It was followed by economic reforms and policy shifts — whether deliberate or incidental — that contributed to the erosion of the North’s, and indeed the nation’s, agriculture and agro-industrial base. Textile industries collapsed. Rural poverty deepened. Unemployment exploded. Social frustration intensified. The consequences soon manifested in rising criminality, religious extremism, insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and communal violence across Northern Nigeria.

President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, due to prolonged ill health, could not substantially reverse the trend. His successor, Goodluck Jonathan, spent much of his six years in office (2010–2015) struggling for political legitimacy after assuming office under the “Doctrine of Necessity.” Large portions of his tenure were devoted to balancing competing political interests through patronage and elite appeasement.

Then came Muhammadu Buhari — a man in whom many Northerners invested enormous hope. To millions, Buhari represented the possibility of restoring Northern political confidence, rebuilding institutional discipline, fighting corruption, and stabilising the economy. Instead, disappointment followed. Critics argue that Buhari lacked both the strategic vision and the competent support structure required for national transformation. Unlike his earlier military administration, where he worked alongside the highly disciplined and efficient Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, or his tenure as Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) chairman under General Sani Abacha, where technocrats such as Dr. Tayo Akpata provided administrative strength, Buhari’s civilian presidency appeared increasingly directionless.

Over time, the administration became associated with weak leadership, policy inconsistency, growing insecurity, and allegations that powerful unelected interests had effectively taken control of governance. Meanwhile, corruption flourished across critical institutions. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), the power sector, and even parts of the judiciary faced repeated allegations of financial recklessness and abuse of public trust. The economy deteriorated sharply. Inflation rose. Poverty deepened. Insecurity expanded.

By the time Buhari left office in 2023, many believed the North had emerged politically weaker, economically poorer, and socially more unstable than at any point in recent decades, when Obasanjo and Jonathan from the South, and Yar’Adua and Buhari, both of Northern extraction, were in charge at various times.

Into this environment stepped President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29, 2023. But then, instead of using the opportunity to improve the dire national condition for the benefit of all, he may have chosen to see it as a historic opportunity to pursue a regional agenda. The restructuring advocacy that could not be secured through constitutional means might now be achieved through the political manipulation of the exhausted North; the very region and peoples that gave him over 60% of the votes that got him elected in 2023 became his first set of victims. And, like a shark that smelled blood, he went for the political kill in earnest. It was an opportunity handed to him literally on a platter of gold.

And the strategy? Simple. Set morality and a sense of proportion aside. After all, it is often asserted that there is no morality in politics; that in politics all is fair, just like in war or love. Wisdom, however, accepts this adage only up to a point, if the endgame is not to ultimately destroy the object or issue at stake. To achieve the objectives, certain areas have to be targeted to weaken the system as a whole. These include occupying the commanding positions of critical federal ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), taking control of the nation’s security architecture, and applying national policy instruments in a self-serving fashion. After four or eight years in office, the perceived dominant region would have been reduced to a mere statistical base.

At the governance level, critical appointments across strategic ministries, agencies, and security institutions have gone to cronies. Key federal establishments — finance, security, revenue, customs, NNPC, etc. — are increasingly concentrated in the hands of individuals who are politically and ethnically aligned with the President.

Perhaps more dangerous than political appointments is the growing and encouraging posture of the powers that be to fragment the North itself, with far-reaching existential implications for the nation at large. Historically, Northern Nigeria maintained political relevance through collective bargaining and regional solidarity despite its internal ethnic and religious diversity. Today, however, old fault lines are re-emerging with alarming intensity. The embers of ethnic suspicion are being fanned among Hausa, Fulani, Kanuri, Tiv, Jukun, Nupe, Igala, Babur, and numerous other groups to see themselves as incompatible. Religious identities are increasingly being made to shape political interpretation. The Middle Belt and the far North are being influenced to peel apart. Old grievances — real and imaginary — are resurfacing and being harnessed for short-term political gains.

On the economic front, but for the putative possibility of working towards a self-serving goal, not all policies introduced by the Tinubu administration are fundamentally misguided. The removal of fuel subsidy was economically inevitable. The floating of the naira addressed long-standing distortions within the foreign exchange market. The system was thoroughly abused under Buhari through the existence of multiple poorly managed windows. Tax reforms are necessary in a country where public revenue remains dangerously low relative to population size. Tax evasion and avoidance have made the nation’s tax-to-GDP ratio one of the lowest globally.

The problem lies largely in implementation. Firstly, the composition of the reform teams has been too skewed to engender trust and public buy-in, which is critical in reform exercises. Secondly, major economic reforms require trust, social cushioning, and carefully designed transition mechanisms. Nigerians were asked to absorb severe economic pain without adequate safety nets. Food inflation skyrocketed. The government tried to address the situation through short-term massive imports, but without adequate consideration for their impact on domestic production.

In an economy heavily dependent on agriculture, many expected a fine balance to be simultaneously struck between massive importation and investments in food production, rural infrastructure, fertiliser access, irrigation, and agricultural security. It never was. Instead, large sections of the agrarian North feel neglected and economically uncared for.

Another gap in the Tinubu policy lies in the distribution of physical infrastructure. The lopsidedness has become politically contentious. It is estimated that about 60% of the nation’s budget is channelled to the South West. Projects such as the alleged N15 trillion Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway come to mind. Forget about the afterthought, the Lagos-Badagry-Sokoto corridor. Insecurity would not allow it to commence, at least not from the Sokoto end. Then there is the massive rehabilitation of Lagos ports and airports, along with the establishment and/or extension of a military academy in Osogbo and a police academy project in Ogun State. Many in the North believe the President is being driven by ethnic considerations.

There is nothing inherently wrong with expanding infrastructure in the South West. Every region deserves development. Yet, in a country as sensitive as Nigeria, federal balance matters enormously. Development experts generally agree that a balanced approach to development remains the best model.

In the words of Ragnar Nurkse, a famous 20th-century economist, et al., developing nations must make simultaneous, large-scale investments across various industries to break the vicious circle of poverty and spur faster and greater socioeconomic transformation. As a consequence, some of the institutions and projects should have gone to the South-South or the South-East, for that matter. The North should not complain because it housed most of the nation’s security outfits, so others could have them too in the name of equity.

However, if every region begins to view federal power as an opportunity for regional compensation or historical revenge, then the federation itself becomes unstable. If the South West is perceived as consolidating power today, the North may attempt retaliation tomorrow. If the South East eventually gains power after decades of political exclusion, it too may pursue accelerated regional balancing. The cycle would continue endlessly. That is the true danger seen in the current moment: not merely Tinubu’s presidency itself, but the precedent it may establish.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may ultimately complete both his first and second terms successfully. But unless mother luck smiles on the country, the federation may fall apart, as others may use their “turn” to lock others out too. Every cycle weakens the national fabric further through sowing more distrust, exclusion, bitterness, inequality, and the loss of shared national purpose, and maybe eventual dissolution.

Maybe as Plan B, the Odu’a Republic would have been perfected by then — a realisation of a long-held dream by many in the South West. Actually, many perceive the perennial agitation for sovereign national conferences as representing a crucial step towards the Odu’a aspiration. The same vision exists with IPOB, differing only in modus operandi. While the latter uses violence, the former adopts a non-violent approach.

One can only hope that the fears expressed by many Nigerians today ultimately prove unfounded. For if they do not, the country may be approaching one of the most dangerous crossroads in its history: a no-Nigeria era after the Tinubu presidency.

The call here, therefore, is for the President to come into the open and call for the organisation of a summit to pull Nigeria away from the current confusion and stagnation. Literally, no one is enjoying the state of affairs. People deserve a Nigeria that works.

Except for courage, in general, he has everything working in his favour. These include a conscience lacking even a modicum of proportionality; a puppet leadership in both chambers of the legislature; an injudicious judiciary dominated by homeboys; an ethnically skewed national security architecture; and a vision that generally does not go beyond ethnic horizons.

Since the President could not rise above his predecessors in terms of governance, the environment, therefore, is conducive to convening a restructuring process and/or a sovereign national conference. There are no serious encumbrances standing in the way. Restructuring a nation is too serious a business to be handled through manoeuvres and deception. He should set fear aside and do it in order to save the nation from some unintended outcomes.
A.G. Abubakar
agbarewa@gmail.com