Prof Zulum’s Lecture at the 5th edition of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe Annual Award Lecture 2024

Nigeria’s Governance Model: Prospect and Perspective

Prof Babagana Umara Zulum, CON, mni, FNSE, FNIAE
Executive Governnor, Borno State

Being Keynote Paper Presented at the Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe Annual Award Lectture 2024 (on Zik’s 120 Posthumous Birthday) held at the Zik Hall, Nicon Luxury Hotel, Abuja on Satuday 16 November 2024

(1) Introduction

Nigeria’s governance model stands at a critical juncture, shaped by the complexities of historical, political, and socio-economic developments. As Africa’s most populous country and one of its largest economies, Nigeria’s governance system has garnered significant scholarly and policy-related attention (World Bank, 2019; Akande, 2022). Understanding the prospects for Nigeria’s governance model requires examining it through global, continental, regional, and national lenses while acknowledging how governance practices intersect with local realities. Globally, Nigeria is recognized as a key player in international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). However, domestically, its governance model is often criticized for its mixed performance. As a federal republic, Nigeria’s governance structure is influenced by Western systems, particularly the American federal model, which has facilitated democratic processes like elections and legislative governance (Suberu, 2001). Despite this, the persistence of governance challenges—such as corruption, weak institutional frameworks, and political instability—undermine the country’s potential for effective governance (Azoro, Onah Agulefo, 2021). Transparency International’s 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Nigeria 149 out of 180 countries, indicating systemic corruption that hampers democratic governance (Owuamanam & Agbaenyi, 2021). Although Nigeria contributes significantly to global peacekeeping efforts, internal governance challenges, such as the Boko Haram insurgency, diminish its international standing and influence (Mickler, Suleiman & Maiangwa, 2019).

On the African continent, Nigeria’s governance model is viewed both as a model of promise and a source of frustration. Nigeria has played a leading role in shaping regional governance policies within the AU and ECOWAS, especially in areas such as peacekeeping and economic integration (Adebajo, 2002a). Its interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s, through the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), exemplify its leadership in promoting regional stability (Adebajo, 2002b). However, Nigeria’s governance model at home, characterized by ethnic divisions, corruption, and inefficiencies in federalism, often fails to match the standards it advocates regionally. Ethnic diversity, while culturally enriching, exacerbates governance issues, as political elites frequently exploit ethnic identities for political gain, undermining national unity (Mustapha, 2007). The federal system, designed to accommodate Nigeria’s ethnic and regional diversity, has instead intensified competition among groups, contributing to political instability and governance inefficiencies (Suberu, 2001).

At the national level, Nigeria’s governance model faces significant internal contradictions. Since 1999, democracy has persisted, but it remains flawed by structural weaknesses. A notable concern is the disconnect between governance institutions and the populace. The National Assembly and state houses of assembly, tasked with representing the interests of Nigerians, are often perceived as prioritizing personal enrichment over public service. For example, Nigeria’s legislators are widely regarded as some of the highest-paid in the world, despite widespread poverty (Oxfam International, 2017). Moreover, despite constitutional provisions for federalism, Nigeria’s governance system is plagued by the over-centralization of power within the federal government. States and local governments, which are theoretically more responsive to local needs, often lack the financial autonomy to effectively implement development projects due to their reliance on insufficient and delayed federal allocations (Hassan & Musa, 2014). This fiscal centralization has stymied development in regions such as the Niger Delta, where the mismanagement of oil revenues has led to unrest and militancy (Okonta & Douglas, 2003).

The governance challenges in Nigeria also manifest along the geopolitical lines of its six zones (North Central, North East, North West, South East, South South, and South West), reflecting stark regional disparities in development and governance. The northern regions, particularly the North East and North West, lag significantly behind the southern regions in human development indices such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure (ThisDay, 2019, June 17; Musa, 2023; World Bank, 2019; Federal Republic of Nigeria & UNICEF, 2022; UNDP, 2018). Governance in these northern regions has been further complicated by the Boko Haram insurgency, which continues to undermine state authority and displace millions of people (International Crisis Group, 2023, January 16; Zenn, 2020). Conversely, the southern regions, particularly the South West, are relatively more developed and politically stable, with stronger governance structures and economic opportunities. Lagos, the economic hub of the South West, serves as a model for governance innovation, where public-private partnerships have improved infrastructure and service delivery (Olugbenga & David, 2016). The disparities between governance outcomes in the North and South underscore the deep inequalities within Nigeria’s federal structure, posing significant challenges to the realization of a cohesive national governance model. Despite these challenges, Nigeria’s governance model holds promise, provided key reforms are implemented. Decentralization, fiscal federalism, and anti-corruption measures are crucial for ensuring a more effective and equitable governance system. There is also considerable potential for leveraging Nigeria’s youthful population to foster innovation in governance, as seen in the #EndSARS movement, which called for police reform and greater government accountability (Olumayowa & Ojewale, 2021). Furthermore, improvements in electoral processes, such as the integration of technology to prevent electoral fraud, could enhance the legitimacy of governance and rebuild public trust (INEC, 2020).

This paper, therefore, seeks to examine Nigeria’s governance model at this critical juncture, shaped by a complex interplay of historical legacies, socio-political dynamics, and global influences. It will explore the prospects for reforming the country’s federal system, strengthening democratic institutions, and enhancing transparency and accountability. With challenges such as ethnic divisions, corruption, and insecurity still present, the study will analyze how Nigeria can harness its diverse human resources, institutionalize meritocracy, and foster inclusivity in governance. By focusing on key reforms—such as strengthening institutions, improving electoral processes, and tackling corruption—this paper will assess the path toward realizing the full potential of Nigeria’s governance model. Through these lenses, it aims to provide insights into how Nigeria can secure long-term stability, development, and regional leadership.

(2) Background: Evolution of Governance in Nigeria 

The governance structure in Nigeria has undergone significant transformation, shaped by both indigenous and colonial influences, as well as the nation’s post-independence struggles. Before colonialism, Nigeria was home to diverse ethnic groups with distinct systems of governance, such as the highly centralized Sokoto Caliphate in the north and the more decentralized Yoruba kingdoms in the southwest. British colonial rule, formalized by the 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates, established a unified administrative framework that served as the foundation for modern Nigerian governance (Falola & Heaton, 2008). This amalgamation was primarily driven by administrative convenience and economic interests, laying the groundwork for political and socio-economic disparities between the regions.

Colonial and Regional Governance (1914–1960)

During British colonial rule, Nigeria was governed through indirect rule, particularly in the northern region where local emirs retained significant power under the supervision of British colonial officers (Mamdani, 1996). The southern regions, which were more exposed to Western education and Christianity, developed a more bureaucratic form of governance. This regional disparity persisted, influencing the structure of governance after independence. The regional governance system established by the 1946 Richards Constitution divided Nigeria into three regions: the Northern, Western, and Eastern regions, each with its own regional assembly, while the British governor-general retained control of key sectors like defense and foreign policy (Coleman, 1958).

Post-Independence Era (1960–1979)

Upon gaining independence on October 1, 1960, Nigeria adopted a parliamentary system of governance modeled after the British system. However, ethnic and regional divisions continued to dominate politics, leading to tensions between the regions. These tensions escalated into the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), during which the Eastern region attempted to secede as the Republic of Biafra. The military took control of governance in 1966, marking the beginning of a long era of military rule that spanned most of the next three decades. During this period, there were attempts to restructure the country to promote national unity, such as the creation of 12 states in 1967 by General Yakubu Gowon, replacing the regional system with a more centralized federal structure (Joseph, 1991).

From Military to Civilian Rule (1979–1999)

The Second Republic (1979–1983) saw Nigeria shift to a presidential system of governance, modeled after the United States, with a stronger central government and elected president. However, this period was short-lived as the military again seized power in 1983, citing widespread corruption and economic mismanagement (Othman, 1984). Successive military regimes, particularly under General Ibrahim Babangida (1985–1993) and General Sani Abacha (1993–1998), maintained a highly centralized form of governance. The Abacha regime was especially notorious for its human rights abuses and suppression of democratic institutions. The return to civilian rule in 1999 marked a significant shift, as Nigeria transitioned to its Fourth Republic with the election of President Olusegun Obasanjo. This period saw the introduction of democratic reforms, including decentralization and greater autonomy for the 36 states, which were created incrementally between 1967 and 1996 to reflect Nigeria’s complex ethnic composition (Suberu, 2001).

Contemporary Governance: Federalism and Challenges (1999–Present)

Since the return to democracy in 1999, Nigeria has operated as a federal republic, with power shared between the central government and 36 states. However, this federal structure has faced numerous challenges, including corruption, ethno-religious conflicts, and governance inefficiencies. These challenges are often traced back to the colonial era’s divisive policies and the centralized nature of military rule, which hindered the development of a robust federal system (Akinola, Adebisi & Oyewo, 2015). In recent years, demands for restructuring have resurfaced, with calls for devolution of power to address regional inequalities and governance inefficiencies. The Boko Haram insurgency in the northeastern states, which began in 2009, highlights the governance challenges Nigeria faces in maintaining national unity and security (Zenn, 2020). Despite these challenges, Nigeria’s governance evolution demonstrates a complex interplay between historical legacies, regional interests, and the pursuit of democratic consolidation.

(3) Governance Models in Nigeria 

Nigeria’s political and governance systems have undergone various transformations over the decades, shaped by historical events, constitutional changes, and the need to address socio-political realities. The evolution of governance models in Nigeria reflects the complexities of managing a diverse nation with distinct ethnic, religious, and regional identities.

Below is a discussion of the key governance models that have characterized Nigeria’s political history.
Westminster Parliamentary Democracy (1960–1966)

At independence on October 1, 1960, Nigeria adopted the Westminster parliamentary democracy, modeled after the British system. In this system, political power was centered in a parliament, where the head of government (Prime Minister) was chosen from the majority party. Nigeria’s first Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, was elected under this system, and Queen Elizabeth II served as the ceremonial head of state until Nigeria became a republic in 1963, replacing her with an elected president, Nnamdi Azikiwe. Despite its democratic structure, this governance model was marked by ethnic tensions and regional rivalries that ultimately led to political instability and the first military coup in 1966 (Falola & Heaton, 2008; Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014).

Centralized Governance (1960–1966)

Though Nigeria adopted a federal structure in 1954 under the Lyttleton Constitution, the immediate post-independence years (1960–1966) saw significant centralization of power. The regional governments enjoyed some autonomy, but the federal government, controlled by the northern-dominated NPC (Northern People’s Congress), wielded immense power, particularly over military and economic resources (Sklar, 2004). This concentration of authority in the center exacerbated ethnic tensions and regional disparities, eventually contributing to the collapse of the First Republic in January 1966, when the military staged a coup, ending the era of centralized civilian governance.

Military Rule (1966–1979 & 1983–1999)

Military rule has been one of the most enduring governance models in Nigeria, spanning nearly 30 years. The first period of military rule began in 1966 after a coup d’état that overthrew the parliamentary system. Under successive military regimes, particularly during the Biafran Civil War (1967–1970), the military sought to centralize governance further by abolishing the regional system and creating states, starting with the division of Nigeria into 12 states in 1967 (Joseph, 1991). This marked a shift toward a more authoritarian and centralized form of governance. Military rule continued until 1979 when General Olusegun Obasanjo handed over power to a civilian government, only for the military to return in 1983, following accusations of corruption and inefficiency in the civilian government of Shehu Shagari (Othman, 1984). The second period of military rule (1983–1999) was characterized by several military coups, economic decline, and widespread human rights abuses, particularly during General Sani Abacha’s regime (1993–1998). Military rule finally ended in 1999 when General Abdulsalami Abubakar oversaw the transition to a democratically elected civilian government.

Presidential Democracy (1979–1983 & 1999–Present)

Following the end of the first military rule, Nigeria transitioned to a presidential system of democracy in 1979. Modeled after the U.S. system, this governance model concentrated executive power in the hands of a president, who was both the head of state and head of government, with checks and balances provided by the judiciary and a bicameral legislature. The Second Republic (1979–1983), led by President Shehu Shagari, sought to address the ethnic and regional divisions that plagued the First Republic, but it was short-lived due to economic mismanagement and corruption. The military once again seized power in December 1983, suspending the constitution and reverting to authoritarian rule (Diamond, 1983). The return to civilian rule in 1999 marked the beginning of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, and the presidential system has been in place since. This system remains characterized by a strong executive branch, a multi-party political system, and federalism, although it has faced challenges such as corruption, electoral malpractice, and ethno-religious conflicts (Suberu, 2001).

Federal System (1979–Present)

Federalism has been a consistent feature of Nigeria’s governance structure, despite the interruptions of military rule. The federal system, in theory, distributes power between the central government and subnational units (states), allowing for a degree of autonomy at the regional level. The federal system was initially adopted in 1954 under the Lyttleton Constitution, but it was significantly modified in subsequent years. The creation of states, which began in 1967 under military rule, was aimed at reducing regional disparities and ethno-political tensions (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014; Sklar, 2004). Today, Nigeria comprises 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Despite its federal nature, the Nigerian system has often been criticized for being overly centralized, with most fiscal and administrative powers concentrated in the federal government. The calls for restructuring to devolve more power to the states have become louder in recent years, as various groups demand a more equitable distribution of resources and decision-making power (Suberu, 2001).

Government of National Unity (Shonekan) (1993–1994)

In the wake of the annulled 1993 presidential election, which was widely believed to have been won by Chief Moshood Abiola, General Ibrahim Babangida was forced to step down from power. He handed over to a civilian interim government led by Ernest Shonekan, who headed a Government of National Unity (GNU). This arrangement, however, was short-lived. Shonekan’s government lacked legitimacy and was perceived as weak. On November 17, 1993, General Sani Abacha ousted Shonekan in a bloodless coup, marking the return of military rule (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014).

(4) Perspective on Governance Model for Nigeria – 

Nigeria’s governance model reflects its attempt to manage a complex and diverse nation. A key challenge has been maintaining national unity while ensuring that the different ethnic and regional groups are adequately represented. Several enabling factors have been implemented over time to foster unity and promote effective governance. These include mechanisms designed to reflect Nigeria’s “unity in diversity,” ensure political inclusiveness, and promote national integration. Below is an analysis of key enabling factors within Nigeria’s governance model.

4.1 Enabling Factors

Unity in Diversity

Nigeria is home to over 250 ethnic groups, with significant religious and cultural diversity. The concept of “unity in diversity” has been central to governance in Nigeria, aimed at promoting national cohesion while respecting the unique identities of different groups. One manifestation of this principle is federalism, which allows for the division of power among the federal, state, and local governments, giving regions a degree of autonomy (Suberu, 2001). The challenge, however, remains in balancing regional interests with national unity, a recurring issue in Nigerian politics.

Federal Character

The “Federal Character” principle was enshrined in Nigeria’s 1979 Constitution and has been reaffirmed in subsequent constitutions. The Federal Character Commission (FCC) ensures that appointments and resource allocations in the public sector reflect Nigeria’s diverse ethnic and regional makeup (Obiyan & Akindele, 2002; Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014). While this system aims to prevent ethnic domination in governance, it has sometimes been criticized for promoting mediocrity over meritocracy, as appointments are often based on quotas rather than competence.

Rotational Presidency

To address regional and ethnic disparities in political power, Nigeria has adopted an informal system of rotational presidency. This arrangement, which began after the return to democracy in 1999, rotates the presidency between the north and the south. The idea behind this model is to ensure that no one region dominates political leadership for an extended period (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014; Akinola, Adebisi & Oyewo, 2015). This practice has played a role in reducing ethnic tensions, though its informal nature sometimes leads to political disputes, particularly during election cycles.

National Youth Service Corps (NYSC)

Established in 1973, the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) aims to foster national unity by requiring graduates to serve in states other than their own for one year. The program encourages interaction between young Nigerians from diverse backgrounds, helping to break down ethnic and regional stereotypes (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014; Abdulrauf-Salau, 2012). Despite criticisms of its effectiveness in recent years, the NYSC remains a key initiative for promoting national integration.

Unity Colleges

Unity Schools, established in 1973, were designed to promote national unity by bringing students from various parts of the country to study together. These colleges were strategically located across Nigeria, with quotas ensuring that students from different regions attended the same institutions. By fostering inter-ethnic relationships from an early age, these schools sought to contribute to national cohesion (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014; Ojo, 2009). However, issues such as underfunding and regional favoritism have hampered their effectiveness over time.

Sport as a Unifying Factor

Sports, especially football, have historically served as a strong unifying force in Nigeria. Major sporting events, such as the country’s victories in international tournaments (e.g., the 1996 Olympic gold medal in football), have brought together Nigerians from all walks of life, transcending ethnic and regional differences. The national football team, the Super Eagles, and their successes have often provided a sense of collective identity and pride (Efebeh, 2020). Sports serve as an informal but powerful tool in fostering unity, complementing more formal governance initiatives.

The Defence and Security Forces as a Unity Ground

The Nigerian armed forces have historically played a significant role in maintaining national unity, particularly during periods of political instability such as the Civil War (1967–1970). The military, which recruits from all regions of the country, often serves as a melting pot of ethnicities and religions. Despite challenges such as ethnic bias within the officer corps, the defense forces remain a critical institution for ensuring national cohesion and security (Musa, 2023). Their role in peacekeeping operations across Nigeria’s troubled regions highlights their importance as a unifying force.

Separation of Powers: Checks and Balances

Nigeria’s governance model is anchored on the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, aimed at ensuring checks and balances. This system is designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one arm of government and to promote accountability. The judiciary, in particular, plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and mediating disputes between the other branches of government (Musa, 2023). However, political interference and corruption have sometimes undermined the effectiveness of this system, leading to calls for stronger institutional independence.

The New National Anthem

The national anthem is an important symbol of Nigeria’s aspirations for unity and serves as a reminder of the collective identity of its people. Nigeria adopted a post-colonial national anthem in 1978, which replaced the old one from the colonial era. The anthem, “Arise, O Compatriots,” reflects a call to national service and unity, promoting values of peace, brotherhood, and the pursuit of collective goals. The lyrics emphasize national pride and encourage citizens to rise above ethnic and regional differences (Falola & Heaton, 2008). In 2024, the national assembly promulgated a new national anthem “O God of Creation, direct our noble course” which breath a fresh air of hope, patriotism and rannaiscance for nation-building and sacrifice among Nigeians. The new national anthem offers a clean break from the reitred national anthem, calling Nigerians to rededicate themsevels to the onerous task of national service.

The Bureaucracy

The civil service in Nigeria plays a key role in implementing government policies and maintaining administrative continuity across different regimes, whether civilian or military. The bureaucracy has been crucial in upholding the Federal Character principle, as appointments within the civil service are expected to reflect Nigeria’s diverse population (Akinola, Adebisi & Oyewo, 2015). Despite challenges such as inefficiency and corruption, the bureaucracy remains a central institution in the functioning of Nigeria’s governance model.

The Media: Fourth Estate of the Realm

The media, often referred to as the “fourth estate of the realm,” plays a crucial role in Nigeria’s governance by promoting transparency, accountability, and public participation. Nigerian media outlets, which operate in a relatively free environment compared to other African nations, have historically been instrumental in exposing corruption and advocating for political reforms (Olukotun, 2004). However, the media is not without its challenges, including bias, sensationalism, and political interference. Nevertheless, it continues to serve as a platform for national dialogue and the promotion of unity.

4.2 Disabling Factors 

Despite the various enabling factors designed to promote national unity and effective governance in Nigeria, several disabling factors continue to hinder progress. These challenges undermine efforts to create a stable, equitable, and efficient governance system. Key disabling factors include ethnicity, religion, corruption, insecurity, sabotage, apathy, and external influences. These issues have historically led to governance failures, political instability, and weakened national cohesion.

Ethnicity

Ethnic division is one of the most pervasive and divisive issues in Nigerian governance. With over 250 ethnic groups, Nigeria has struggled with the challenge of balancing ethnic interests while promoting national unity. Ethnicity often drives political competition, with leaders and parties aligning along ethnic lines, exacerbating divisions. The dominance of the three major ethnic groups—the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo—often marginalizes smaller groups, leading to feelings of exclusion and discontent (Mustapha, 2007: Musa, 2023). Ethnic-based politics also fuel regionalism, resulting in calls for greater autonomy or resource control from specific regions, such as the Niger Delta, which has been a focal point of ethnic-based resource disputes (Ikelegbe, 2005).

Religion

Religion is another major source of division in Nigeria, with Islam and Christianity being the two dominant faiths, while traditional African religions also have a presence. Religious tension often overlaps with ethnic divisions, as certain ethnic groups are predominantly aligned with one religion. For instance, the north is predominantly Muslim, while the south is mainly Christian. This religious divide has contributed to numerous conflicts, including violent clashes between Christian and Muslim communities, as seen in the recurring violence in Jos and Kaduna states (Falola, 1998). Religious extremism, particularly the rise of Boko Haram in northern Nigeria, has further exacerbated tensions and hindered governance efforts.

Corruption

Corruption remains a significant obstacle to good governance in Nigeria. From political offices to public service, corruption is deeply entrenched in the system, diverting resources meant for development into private pockets. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has consistently ranked Nigeria among the most corrupt countries in the world (Hassan, Sambo & Musa, 2021; Musa, 2022; Akinmoyeje, 2024). The diversion of public funds for private use not only weakens governance structures but also breeds public mistrust and apathy. Nigeria’s oil wealth, in particular, has been a major source of corruption, with numerous scandals involving the mismanagement of oil revenues (Ross, 2015).

Insecurity

Insecurity is a major disabling factor that undermines governance and economic development. Nigeria has faced persistent security challenges, from ethno-religious conflicts to insurgencies like Boko Haram in the northeast, militancy in the Niger Delta, and banditry and kidnapping across the country. Insecurity hampers development efforts, as regions affected by violence often experience slower economic growth and reduced investment. The Boko Haram insurgency, which began in 2009, has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, widespread displacement, and has severely disrupted governance in northeastern Nigeria (Agbiboa, 2013). Insecurity also strains the state’s ability to provide basic services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Sabotage and Insubordination to Cosntituted Authority

Sabotage, particularly in the form of political and economic subversion, has been a recurring issue in Nigeria. Politicians and interest groups often engage in acts of sabotage to undermine their opponents or gain political leverage. For instance, during the oil boom years, oil pipeline sabotage became a common practice, particularly in the Niger Delta, where aggrieved groups sought to disrupt oil production to protest environmental degradation and demand a fair share of oil revenues (Watts, 2008). Such acts of sabotage not only damage infrastructure but also disrupt governance, create insecurity, and contribute to economic losses. A recent manifestation of sabotage is the acts of felony committed by some disgruntled young Nigerians during the #EndBadGovernence protest held on 1-10 August 2024. One ugly occurrence was the display of Russian natinal flag in the streets of Nigeria. It is unclear who masterminded this act of national disservice, but apparently that was a gross display of sabotage and utter disrespect for constituted authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Apathy and Indifference

Political apathy and indifference among Nigerian citizens is a growing concern, particularly due to the disillusionment with the political class and the perception that political leaders are more concerned with personal enrichment than public service continues to underpin public anger and discontent. Voter turnout in elections has been consistently low, as many citizens believe that their votes will not lead to meaningful change (Mahmud, 2015). This apathy stems from years of political corruption, broken promises, and the failure of elected officials to address pressing national issues such as poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Political disengagement weakens democracy and makes it easier for corrupt leaders to remain in power.

External Factors

External factors, including international influences and global economic conditions, also impact Nigeria’s governance. As a major oil exporter, Nigeria’s economy is heavily dependent on the global oil market, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices. For instance, the global oil price crash in 2014 severely impacted Nigeria’s revenue, leading to economic recession and budget deficits (Obi, 1997). External debt and reliance on foreign loans have also constrained Nigeria’s ability to implement effective governance, as debt servicing consumes a significant portion of the national budget. Additionally, international pressure from organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank often pushes for economic reforms that are sometimes unpopular domestically but are necessary for securing financial assistance (Musa & Bayero, 2024: Musa, 2014).

(5) Towards an Effective Governance Model for Nigeria

Achieving an effective governance model for Nigeria requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses the disabling factors while capitalizing on the enabling factors that promote unity and national development. To enhance governance, Nigeria must focus on institutional reforms, leadership integrity, inclusivity, transparency, and fostering national values that bind its diverse population. Below are key components for improving governance in Nigeria.

Building Strong Institutions

Strong institutions are the bedrock of any effective governance system. In Nigeria, the need to build robust institutions—those that operate beyond the influence of individuals—is paramount. Institutions like the judiciary, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), anti-corruption agencies, and law enforcement bodies must be strengthened to function independently and ensure accountability. Strong institutions provide checks and balances, reduce opportunities for corruption, and foster a culture of the rule of law (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). For instance, countries like Botswana have seen stable governance due to strong institutions that outlast leadership changes, contributing to long-term development (Mauro, 1995).

Building Core National Values

Developing and nurturing core national values that unite citizens across ethnic, religious, and regional lines is crucial for national cohesion. Nigeria’s values of unity, democracy, and justice must be actively promoted through civic education and leadership examples. National symbols such as the Nigerian flag, national anthem, and pledge serve as unifying factors, but more needs to be done to instill a deep sense of patriotism. For example, countries like the United States and Canada emphasize civic education to promote national values, which helps create a sense of shared identity among their diverse populations (Musa, 2024; Putnam, 2000).

Recruiting Leaders of Integrity; Eliminating Bad Eggs

The recruitment of leaders with integrity is essential for effective governance in Nigeria. Leadership in Nigeria has often been plagued by corruption and self-interest, which have eroded public trust and weakened governance. Therefore, efforts should be made to recruit leaders who are not only competent but also morally upright and committed to public service. Systems of leadership selection and accountability, including electoral reforms and stricter vetting processes, should be implemented to remove corrupt individuals from public office. For instance, countries like Singapore have achieved remarkable development partly due to the leadership’s emphasis on integrity and zero tolerance for corruption (Quah, 2001).

Transparency in Governance

Transparency is a key element of good governance. Transparent governance ensures that citizens have access to information about government activities, allowing for greater accountability and reducing corruption. Nigeria has made some progress in this area, with initiatives like the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which allows the public to request information from government institutions. However, these laws need to be fully enforced to ensure that public institutions operate in an open and accountable manner. Transparency in budgeting, procurement processes, and public service delivery must be prioritized (Williams & Andrew, 2021).

Unity in Diversity

Promoting unity in Nigeria’s diverse society is crucial for its governance model to be effective. Programs such as the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and Unity Schools aim to foster national unity by encouraging young Nigerians to interact with people from different parts of the country. These initiatives should be strengthened to foster greater understanding and tolerance among Nigeria’s diverse ethnic, religious, and regional groups (Musa, 2023; Hassan & Musa, 2014). For example, countries like South Africa, which has faced similar issues of ethnic diversity, have implemented reconciliation programs that promote inclusiveness (Gibson, 2004).

Inclusivity in Governance

An inclusive governance model ensures that all segments of society are represented and have a voice in decision-making processes. In Nigeria, efforts to include marginalized groups—such as women, youths, and ethnic minorities—should be intensified. The principle of “Federal Character,” which ensures equitable distribution of positions among Nigeria’s various regions and ethnic groups, must be fully implemented to prevent exclusion. Women’s participation in Nigerian politics remains significantly low, with women holding less than 10% of parliamentary seats, including only 3% in the Senate and 4% in the House of Representatives (Nkereuwem, 2023). Promoting inclusivity in governance fosters stability by reducing marginalization and ensuring diverse perspectives are represented in decision-making processes.

Ensuring Bottom-Up Approach

Effective governance requires that policies and development initiatives reflect the needs and aspirations of the people. A bottom-up approach, where decision-making starts at the grassroots and involves local communities, can help ensure that governance is responsive and aligned with citizens’ needs. Local governments should be empowered to play a more active role in development, as they are closer to the people and better positioned to understand local challenges. This approach has been successful in countries like India, where local governance structures, such as Panchayats, play a significant role in addressing community-specific issues (Sebastian & Sugirtha, 2023).

Result-Orientation in Governance

Governance in Nigeria should shift from rhetoric to results. Policies and programs must be designed with measurable outcomes in mind, and public officials should be held accountable for their performance. Result-oriented governance ensures that resources are used effectively and that citizens see tangible benefits from government initiatives. For instance, Rwanda’s focus on result-oriented governance has contributed to its remarkable recovery and development post-genocide, with the country showing progress in areas such as healthcare, education, and economic development (Clark & Kaufman, 2008).

(6) Conclusion 

Nigeria’s governance model is at a critical juncture, shaped by a complex interplay of historical legacies, socio-political dynamics, and evolving global influences. The country’s journey from colonialism to independence, through military regimes and democratic transitions, has left deep marks on its governance structure. While the federal system and democratic institutions offer a framework for inclusivity, the persistence of challenges such as ethnicity, corruption, insecurity, and weak institutions undermine the full realization of Nigeria’s governance potential.

There are clear opportunities for Nigeria to improve its governance model. The push for institutional reforms aimed at strengthening democracy, enhancing transparency, and ensuring accountability offers hope for better governance. Programs and policies such as the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), Federal Character principle, and Rotational Presidency are promising avenues to promote unity in diversity. Similarly, advancements in technology can enhance transparency and citizen engagement, allowing for greater accountability and civic participation. If Nigeria capitalizes on its human resources, embraces meritocracy, and continues its fight against corruption, there is potential for significant national progress. Moreover, Nigeria’s federal system provides a flexible structure that can accommodate its ethnic and regional diversity, allowing for decentralized decision-making. If effectively implemented, a bottom-up governance approach can ensure that policies reflect the needs of all Nigerians, particularly at the grassroots level. With sustained political will, Nigeria can build strong institutions that outlast political transitions and ensure long-term stability.

To secure these prospects, however, certain critical reforms must be prioritized. Building strong institutions and nurturing a culture of integrity in leadership is paramount. By investing in institutional capacity, Nigeria can overcome the reliance on strong individuals and instead create systems that ensure continuity, accountability, and justice. The reform of electoral processes to ensure free, fair, and credible elections will further strengthen democracy, reduce political violence, and foster confidence in governance. In addition, inclusivity in governance must go beyond symbolic representation. Nigeria must actively pursue policies that empower marginalized groups—women, youth, and minorities—ensuring that they have a meaningful role in decision-making. This inclusivity will help reduce tensions and foster a sense of ownership and belonging across the nation. The fight against corruption remains central to governance reform. By enforcing anti-corruption measures, promoting transparency in public service, and holding corrupt officials accountable, Nigeria can rebuild trust in governance. These reforms, combined with sustained economic growth and security sector reforms, will create a stable environment conducive to development.

Nigeria’s governance model holds significant prospects, but achieving its full potential requires deliberate and sustained reforms. Strong institutions, leadership integrity, inclusivity, and transparency are essential pillars for effective governance. While disabling factors such as ethnic divisions, corruption, and insecurity present challenges, Nigeria’s resilience and its rich human and natural resources offer hope for a brighter future. With a focused commitment to unity, accountability, and inclusivity, Nigeria can evolve into a model of effective governance on the African continent. As the “Giant of Africa,” Nigeria’s success in governance will have far-reaching implications for both its citizens and the broader region.

Bibliography

Abdulrauf-Salau, A. (2012). National Youth Service Corps scheme and the quest for national unity and development: A public relations perspective. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293976288_National_Youth_Service_Corps_Scheme_and_the_Quest_for_National_Unity_and_Development_A_Public_Relations_Perspective.
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
Adebajo, A. (2002a). Building Peace in West Africa: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-Bissau. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Adebajo, A. (2002b). Liberia’s Civil War: Nigeria, ECOMOG, and Regional Security in West Africa. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Agbiboa, D. E. (2013). Why Boko Haram exists: The relative deprivation perspective. African Conflict & Peacebuilding Review, 3(1), 144-158.
Akande, O. B. (2022). Impact of governance policy on socioeconomic development in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Walden University.
Akinmoyeje, T. (2024, January 30). Report: Nigeria among world’s 40 most corrupt countries. Foundation for Investigative Journalism. https://fij.ng/article/report-nigeria-among-worlds-40-most-corrupt-countries/
Akinola, A. B., Adebisi, K. S., & Oyewo, O. O. (2015). Leadership and democratic governance in Nigeria. Developing Country Studies, 5(6), 83. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234682281.pdf
Azoro C.J.S. , Onah C.A., Agulefo Q.O. (2021), Weak Institutions and Poor Governance in Nigeria: A Socio-Legal Perspective. African Journal of Law, Political Research and Administration 4(2), 61-70. DOI: 10.52589/AJLPRA5IUFPPRU.
Clark, P., & Kaufman, Z. D. (Eds.). (2008). After genocide: Transitional justice, post-conflict reconstruction, and reconciliation in Rwanda and beyond. Columbia University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1958). Nigeria: Background to nationalism. University of California Press.
Diamond, L. (1983). Nigeria in search of democracy. Foreign Affairs, 61(4), 905-927.
Efebeh, V. E. (2020). Sports as an instrument of development and national cohesion: The Nigerian experience. Journal of Danubian Studies and Research. https://dj.univdanubius.ro/index.php/JDSR/article/view/569/840.
Falola, T. (1998). Violence in Nigeria: The crises of religious politics and secular ideologies. University of Rochester Press.
Falola, T., & Heaton, M. M. (2008). A history of Nigeria. Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, J. L. (2004). Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation?. Russell Sage Foundation.
Hassan, N. A., & Musa, A. (2014). Ecology and Dynamism of Nigerian Government and Politics. Pyla-mak Publishers.
Hassan, N. A., Sambo, A. M., & Musa, A. (2022). Challenges and Prospects of Anti-Corruption Crusade in Nigeria, 2015-2020. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse, 4(3), 218-228.
Ikelegbe, A. (2005). The economy of conflict in the oil-rich Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 14(2), 208-234.
INEC, Independent National Electoral Commission. (2020). Report of the 2019 general election. Independent National Electoral Commission. https://inecnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/REPORT-OF-THE-2019-GENERAL-ELECTION.pdf.
International Crisis Group. (2023, January 16). Rethinking Resettlement and Return in Nigeria’s North East (Briefing No. 184). https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/nigeria/b184-rethinking-resettlement-and-return-nigerias-north-east
Joseph, R. (1991). Democracy and prebendal politics in Nigeria: The rise and fall of the Second Republic. Cambridge University Press.
Mahmud, S. S. (2015). The 2015 general elections: Voter turnout, voting behavior and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Paper prepared for presentation at the Post Election Conference, The Electoral Institute, Abuja. https://inecnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Conference-Paper-by-Sakah-Saidu-Mahmud.pdf.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press.
Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681-712.
Mickler, D., Suleiman, M. D., & Maiangwa, B. (2019). “Weak state”, regional power, global player: Nigeria and the response to Boko Haram. African Security, 12(3-4), 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2019.1667052
Musa, A. (2014). External loan: One step forward, many steps backwards for socio-economic development in Nigeria. Journal of Production Research & Management, 4(3), 15-22.
Musa, A. (2022). Administration and activities of the Transparency International Group. In N. A. Hassan (Ed.), Concept and Practice of Administration of International Organizations. Pyla-Mak Services Ltd.
Musa, A. (2023). Federalism and National Question in Nigeria: Ethnic Nationalities, National Integration and Security. Pylamac Publishers.
Musa, A. (2024). Citizenship and Indigenous Challenges in Nigeria: Drawing insights from the best practices in the United States. Wukari International Studies Journal, 8(5), 112-123.
Musa, A., & Bayero, A. A. (2024). External debt, socio-economic underdevelopment and human insecurity in Nigeria, 1990-2022. Pyla-Mac Publishers.
Mustapha, A. R. (2007). Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance in Nigeria: A Comparative Perspective. UNRISD.
Nkereuwem, E. (2023). Why women haven’t been successful in Nigerian elections. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. May 9. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/05/why-women-havent-been-successful-in-nigerian-elections?lang=en
Obi, C. (1997). Oil, environmental conflict and national security in Nigeria: Ramifications of the ecology-security nexus for sub-regional peace. Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Obiyan, A. S., & Akindele, S. T. (2002). The federal character principle and gender representation in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 241-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2002.11892352
Ojo, E. O. (2009). Federalism and the search for national integration in Nigeria. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 3(9), 384-395. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJPSIR/article-full-text-pdf/AB630EE40478
Okonta, I., & Douglas, O. (2003). Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the Niger Delta. Sierra Club Books.
Olugbenga, E., & David, T.W. (2016). Public-Private Partnership on Infrastructural Development in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of environment and earth science, 6, 138-144.
Olukotun, A. (2004). Repressive state and resurgent media under Nigeria’s military dictatorship, 1988-98. Nordic Africa Institute.
Olumayowa, O., & Ojewale, O. (2021). Youth protests for police reform in Nigeria. The David Harwood Journal. April 5. https://tdhj.org/blog/post/sars-protests-police-reform-nigeria/
Othman, S. (1984). Classes, crises, and coup: The demise of Shagari’s regime. African Affairs, 83(333), 441-461.
Owuamanam, C. M., & Agbaenyi, A. N. (2021). Nigeria’s international image crisis: An evaluative analysis. ZIK Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4, 99-115. AphriaPUB. https://journals.aphriapub.com
Oxfam International. (2017). Inequality in Nigeria: Exploring the drivers. Oxfam International. https://www.oxfam.org.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Quah, J. S. (2001). Combating corruption in Singapore: What can be learned?. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(1), 29-35.
Ross, M. L. (2015). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press.
Sebastian, S., & Sugirtha, M. (2023). Performance of the existing Panchayat Raj system in facilitating community development. Journal of Namibian Studies, 33, 6222-6236. https://namibian-studies.com/index.php/JNS/article/download/4959/3446/10126?__cf_chl_tk=NrWouz2CUFxZ.iS2BcrU6DyQqOOmuCSQTDZ6bIlr4KA-1729282337-1.0.1.1-_As_YjjWtmyL2a23NifkcYvlIu41UlvDDcrL07pZoFc
Sklar, R. L. (2004). Nigerian political parties: Power in an emergent African nation. Princeton University Press.
Suberu, R. (2001). Federalism and ethnic conflict in Nigeria. United States Institute of Peace Press.
THISDAY. (2019, June 17). Northern Nigeria’s prosperity: Imperative of social and educational reforms. THISDAYLIVE. https://www.thisdaylive.com
UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. (2018). National human development report 2018: Achieving human development in North East Nigeria. UNDP. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdr2018nigeriafinalfinalx3.pdf
Watts, M. (2008). Petro-insurgency or criminal syndicate? Conflict and violence in the Niger Delta. Review of African Political Economy, 34(114), 637-660.
Williams, O., & Andrew, T. E. (2021). Transparency and public procurement practices in the Nigerian civil service. African Journal of Business Management, 15(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2020.9087
Williams, O., & Andrew, T. E. (2021). Transparency and public procurement practices in the Nigerian civil service. African Journal of Business Management, 15(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2020.9087
World Bank. (2019). Nigeria on the move: A journey to inclusive growth. Nigeria systematic country diagnostic. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/zh/891271581349536392/pdf/Nigeria-on-the-Move-A-Journey-to-Inclusive-Growth-Moving-Toward-a-Middle-Class-Society.pdf
World Bank. (2019). Nigeria on the move: A journey to inclusive growth: Nigeria systematic country diagnostic. World Bank Group. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/zh/891271581349536392/pdf/Nigeria-on-the-Move-A-Journey-to-Inclusive-Growth-Moving-Toward-a-Middle-Class-Society.pdf
Zenn, J. (2020). Unmasking Boko Haram: Exploring global Jihad in Nigeria. Lynne Rienner Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781626378933