International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

Social Security, Citizenship and Restructuring of

Nigeria
Adams Yahaya Atata1, Hussaini Ibn Mohammed2 & Adebayo Khadijat Adebunmi3
1
Department of General Studies, Federal Polytechnic, Damaturu
2
Department of Sociology, Yobe State University, Damaturu
3
Sahel Multi-Millennial Academy, Damaturu
Email Id: minuteminder007gmail.com1, hussainiibnmohammed@gmail.com2 & crowngift2000yahoo.com3

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4650484

Abstract

The territorial integrity of our dear nation remains unshakable, as the calls for restructuring are rather called for rejuvenation
of the country. This paper titled: Social Security, Citizenship and Restructuring of Nigeria, seeks to strike at the root of
discontents leading to the restructuring debate. As an academic discourse based on archival sources, with a tinge of historical
analysis, it attempts at creating a link between the lack of social security on one hand, and the contradictions between statutory
citizenship and citizenship as operationalized in Nigeria, on the other hand, and their implications on the human condition in
Nigeria. It queries the alleged structural deficit of Nigerian nationhood against the fundamental tenets of federalism. With an
exposition of the Restructuring Debate, within the threshold of social contract theory, it seeks to unravel the possibility of a
befitting structure for corporate Nigeria, with lessons from the root.

Key Words: Citizenship, Federalism, Human Condition, Restructuring, Social Security.

Introduction
The territory now referred to as Nigeria was once a composition of indefinite identities of people diverse in every sense of
diversification. As belligerent kingdoms and expansionists entities coexist, there were suspicion and fear of possible invasion by
alienated neighbors from afar and near as assailants and marauders, sometimes pitched against one another by the Europeans who
nurse multitude of missions: exploration, trade (slave and commodities), proselytization, colonization, and neo-colonization. The
contraption called Nigeria is a periphery that was made by the metropole for the metropole. Hence, a Machiavellian device. In the
colonial calculations, the merger of disparate nationalities into a marriage of inconvenience is an engine of progress. National
boundaries were thus randomly drawn with the intention of balkanization of ethnic nationalities along international borders, thereby
alienating homogeneous people, and merging heterogeneous people, making immense gains from their inherent incompatibility, and
the problem of trust arising from their age-long suspicion.
The prebendal postcolonial leadership having been tutored in statism, have strictly held unto power (for personal gains) at the
detriment of plans for nation-building. The result of the historical leadership deficit and the resultant immanent contradictions of
underdevelopment had left in its trail the yawning and yearning for a functional federation through restructuring. The issue at stake
is how to right the wrongs of a unitary system intertwined into a federal arrangement heralded by the Unification Decree No. 34 of
1966.
This paper is composed of four sections. The first is an assessment of the extent of conformity of federalism as practiced in Nigeria
to the fundamental tenets of federalism. The second section discusses the privatization of social security and human rights and the
implication of these on the human condition of the Nigerian masses. It also entails the interpretation of what it means to be a citizen
in Nigeria, in comparison with that of South Africa, Ghana, and India. The third section entails an inroad into the strands of the
theory of social contract as an umbilical cord between leadership and followership, as they apply separately to the Western and
African societies. The fourth section entails a look at the fundamental structural deficits and the root of discontent for the political
equation of Nigeria, with attempts at suggesting alternatives to causes of discontent.
Thesis: the problem leading to the hullaballoo about restructuring is not regarding structure per se, but about the dysfunctioning of
the Nigerian state in delivering the dividends of citizenship for the Nigerian masses.

13

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

Conformity of Nigeria to the Tenets of Federalism

Federalism, federation, and federal system are coterminous and each is often used interchangeably with the others. A federation is a
country consisting of a group of individual states that have control of their affairs but are controlled by a central government for
national decisions, etc. (Hornby 2015). A federal system of government is an association of free states, where power is
constitutionally shared by the federal, state, and local councils, and with each tier of government exercising its constitutionally
assigned powers and functions (Malemi 2012). Federalism according to Nwabueze (2003) is:
An arrangement where the power of government within a country are shared between a national country-wide government
and a number of regionalized or territorially localized government in such a way as each exists as a government separately
and independently from the others, operating directly on persons and properties within its territorial areas with a will of its
own and its own--apparatus for the conduct of its affairs, and with an authority in some matters exclusive of all the others.
Federalism has been adjudged the most suitable system for Nigeria because it is deemed to be the only reasonable and acceptable
way to politically unite peoples of different ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social, economic, political, geographical, or historical
backgrounds, who are free and independent without destroying their identity and separate existence. The fear of minority tribes
being dominated by majority tribes or races is reduced or allayed by a federal constitution and system of government, as each ethnic
group or race is allowed to rule itself and manage its affairs in its way, at least at the local government level. General Yakubu
Gowon, the erstwhile Nigerian Head of State was quoted to have said, “A country as big as Nigeria and comprising such diversity of
tribes and cultures cannot be successfully governed under unitary government” (Ige 1995).
The following mechanism has been instituted to take care of local differences among the people in form of constitutional provisions:
separation of powers among the arms of government, powers sharing among the levels of government, fundamental rights, federal
character, catchment area, host community, or another special status for the protection of minorities and other disadvantaged
peoples. There are provisions for the coexistence of national and the necessary diverse local laws for the preservation of their local
autonomy (Malemi 2012).
There is fear that the federal government may become weak and unable to maintain the stability of the federation, where the states
are made to retain the bulk of the powers. This the argument of those who oppose the devolution of powers in line with true
federalism. The smooth operation of a federal system is predicated on the existence of a written and rigid constitution that sets out
the terms, conditions, and safeguards of the association, or federation, and which cannot be frivolously amended, but not incapable
of amendment especially when the need arises. Federalism, as practiced in Nigeria, is fraught with massive duplication of
governmental functions, culminating in monumental wastage of the scarce resources of the state. Federalism is a highly expensive
system where the duplication of organs, paraphernalia, facilities, personnel, and so forth, leads to a dissipation of so many financial
resources and energy with little or no results. In a federation, the fear of domination and marginalization is always present, even
though, the country has been divided into so many constituent units (Adaka Boro v the Republic (1966)). Federalism, as practiced in
Nigeria, is devoid of unalloyed loyalty to the federation; rather, it breeds sectional consciousness in the people. People owe
allegiance first to their place of origin, before their state and the federation.
While carving out the underlining principles of federalism, Nwabueze (2003) extracted six principles from his definition of
federalism above. These include:

Separateness and Independence of each Government

Each of the constituent states must be separate and independent of the national government. The thirty-six states and the Federal
Capital Territory must have the legitimate autonomy to operate as thirty-seven autonomous governments enjoying equality of status,
though not meaning equality of weight, powers, and functions as this may be constitutionally exclusive to one state to the exclusion
of the other states. Their relationship with the Federal Government should be devoid of overbearing influence, but based on fair
balanced stricken via constitutional arrangement (in the Exclusive Legislative List and the Concurrent Legislative List in Part I and
Part II respectively of the second schedule to 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria), not as rival or competitors.

Mutual Non-Interference or Intergovernmental Immunity

The doctrine of mutual non-interference is a corollary to the independence of each constituent part of the federation. The power
assigned to the federal government by the constitution must not impede, obstruct or otherwise interfere with those assigned to the
state governments. Intergovernmental immunity implies that no state government should overshadow the other in their relation to the
Federal Government, while the federal government is duty-bound to treat the states as equals.

Equality among the Regional Governments

From the premise that the federal relationship is between the federal government on the one hand and the state governments on the
other, and not between it and each state government separately. The powers of the state governments and their relations to the

14

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

federal government should be the same. No state government should have more or fewer powers than the other or be accorded a
special position in the federal government. Otherwise, the state governments cannot interact among themselves and with the national
government as equal partners. The lodging of greater powers in one state government would tend to produce in it, an attitude of
superiority and arrogance towards the others, and then destroy the equilibrium which should exist between them.

Number of Regional Government between whom a Federal Arrangement can exist

If federalism is to be meaningful at all and be effective in achieving its objectives, a certain minimum number of constituent units
would seem to be necessary. It can easily be perceived that to form a federation of two units, as was the case in Pakistan after 1955,
is to pitch them against each other in a continual battle for supremacy. Federalism thrives upon a multiplicity of interest groups
reacting upon one another to produce equilibrium. A multiplicity of units creates a feeling of interdependence, which in turn
encourages cooperation and mutual tolerance. A union of fifty (50) states, as in the United States of America, must inevitably force
upon each state an awareness of its relative insignificance, in relation to the whole, and the futility of separatism. In Nigeria before
1967, the three-state-structure had created an attitude of self-sufficiency, separatism, and intolerance among the regions.

Techniques for the Division of Power

The existence of the exclusive legislative list for the national assembly and the concurrent legislative list for both the national
assembly and the state houses of assembly has taken care of areas of functionality of parties to the federation. Aspects not covered in
the exclusive legislative list and the concurrent legislative list are the reserves of the constituent units known as residual legislative
lists. It is however appalling that while the exclusive legislative contains sixty-eight (68) items, while the concurrent legislative list
contains thirty (30) items. And where there is a clash of legislative powers between the federal parliament and the state parliament,
the federal parliament prevails based on the doctrine of covering the field (Malemi 2012).

A Supreme Constitution
As is obtainable in precedents set in the United States, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada, the structure of the Nigerian state was
built on a written constitution, which proclaims its supremacy in the opening section, over any other law in the country (Section 1
(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. A supreme constitution by its provisions safeguards the independence of
each tier of government.
An assessment of the status of Nigerian federalism against the yardstick of the above-stated tenets indicates that we are midway into
the journey of realizing true federalism. In the first place, our constituent units are not truly autonomous as Nigeria is unitary in
many ramifications. Examples of the unitary nature can be found in the following instances:
i. In the dispensation of justice where final decisions on matters emanating even from state laws are given at the Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court.
ii. In the operation of a police force, the supreme command flows from the Inspector General, on the instruction of the
President, to the State Commissioner of Police, thereby undermining the authority of the State Governors as the Chief
Security Officers of the state, unlike the practice in other federations as the United States and Canada where each state has
its police and the security system is greatly enhanced.
Secondly, compliance with the doctrine of mutual non-interference is only on papers in Nigeria. Just as the states are not immune
from overbearing by the federal government, the local government levels are not immune from overbearing by the state
governments. While the state enjoys some level of autonomy, the freedom of local government from the shackles of the state
governors is a salient key to true federalism, on one hand, the enhancement of social security and the dividends of citizenship on the
other hand. This is because local government autonomy would bring the dividend of governance to the doorsteps of Nigerians. The
redetermination of the revenue sharing formula to the advantage of states and local government would allay the cry of
marginalization and neglect by some interest groups. In the third place, the regions, zones, or states that make up the Nigerian state
are structurally lopsided in favor of northern Nigeria, which is greater in size (19 states) and population than the other two parties
combined (17 states), but the least developed economically and educationally. Fourthly, given the number of units constituting the
federation in Nigeria, we can conveniently say that there is a level playing ground for political pluralism. This counts in favor of our
unity in diversity, making secessionists only adventurists. Both the technique for power-sharing and the existence of a supreme
constitution is highly contentious constitutional issues for a greater discourse. However, we can say that there is room for
improvement for federalism in Nigeria.

Social Security, Citizenship and Human Condition in Nigeria

Social security, also known as the social safety net has been differently defined. Nwabueze (1989) defined it as the social or
organized collective protection of the individual against poverty, want, destitution, disease, and idleness, caused by hazards and
circumstances of life such as loss of means of livelihood resulting from sickness, maternity, accident injury, invalidity, old age,

15

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

death of breadwinner or unemployment. Honore (1968) viewed the concept of social security as being rooted in welfarism. He
further viewed social justice as an application of social justice that involves the apportionment of an equal share of beneficial things
to all persons who have a genuine claim to them for their wellbeing.
The variants of social security include security from want and security of lives and properties. The importance of social security in
contemporary societies cannot be underestimated because of its enormous benefits. Social security has been instrumental in giving
back to the citizens in time of need; the essence of a social contract is attached with strings that include welfarist orientation. The
institution of social security is capable of injecting calmness into tumultuous situations. It is a fundamental right of the citizens
especially the downtrodden, who might have to choose criminal enterprises as a social strain alternative. Social security has also
been beneficial in the enhancement of a better standard of living and ultimately, life expectancy.
Social security is a universally recognized human right. It is a strand of socioeconomic right to which every human being is entitled.
This was first established in the 1944 International Labour Organization (ILO) declaration of Philadelphia as an obligation to ensure
the provision of basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care. The declaration heralded the ILO
Income Security Recommendation 67 of 1944 and the ILO Social Security (minimum standard) convention 102 of 1952. The right
to social security is also given recognition in Article 22, 23, and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Article 9
(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Articles 11(1 )(e) and 14(2)(c) of the
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); Article 26 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) and Articles 16 and 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Writing about social security policy in Africa, Anifalade (2017) believes that the right to social security has been entrenched in the
constitutions of several nations, either directly as an explicit justiciable right in the Bill of Rights, or indirectly as part of the
Directive Principles of State Policy. He enumerated efforts at enhancing the right to social security in the region to include: the
Principles and Guidelines on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights; the African Common Position on Human and Social Development in Africa in the year 1994; the Ouagadougou
Declaration and Plan of Action on Employment Promotion and Poverty Alleviation in the year 2004; the Social Policy Framework
for Africa in the year 2008, the Extraordinary Summit of the African Union on Employment, Poverty Eradication and Inclusive
Development in Africa in the year 2014, among many others.
Unfortunately, the Nigerian masses have been subjected to historical social exclusion, as second class citizens, in comparison to
their counterparts in the Republic of South Africa and Ghana where the social security provisions in the constitution and the Bills of
Rights respectively are made justiciable, whereas, the right to social security in the Nigerian constitution remains non-justiciable.
The social security laws are meant mostly for the workers in the formal sector of the economy, thereby, increasing poverty in the
country. Section 27(1)(c) of the South African Constitution of 1996 provides that everyone has the right to social security and social
assistance. Under section 27(2) thereof, the state is obliged to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available
resources, to achieve the progressive realization of the right of access to social security. In this context, other measures have been
interpreted to mean ‘financial, judicial, administrative, economic, social and educational measures.
In addition to Ghana’s Bills of Rights, Article 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana makes provision for other socio-economic
rights, which are not expressly contained in the Bill of Rights. Nigerian citizens have been increasingly denied of their right to social
security explicitly given recognition in Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides
that ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government’. This section is included in Chapter II of the
Constitution entitled ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution also
contains provisions on the right to suitable and adequate shelter; suitable and adequate food; a reasonable national minimum living
wage; old age care and pensions; unemployment benefits; sick benefits and welfare of the disabled S. 16(2); the right to adequate
medical and health facilities; 17(2) and the right to education S. 18(1). These provisions are key components of a viable social
security scheme. However, they are prima facie non-justiciable by the provisions of section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution which has
generally ousted the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or
person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision conforms with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State
Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution.
As observed above the denial of an average Nigerian of the status of statutory citizenship is fundamental in the constitution, which is
still subjected to the directives of the colonialists, even after five decades of its existence. This is the manifestation of citizenship as
operationalized in Nigeria. The second-class citizens have been reduced to panhandlers by the first-class citizens, who use peanuts
(as dividends of democracy) to cajole the pauperized former into mere rubberstamps during electioneering politics. The doors to the
attainment of the ideal-typically statutory citizenship; as enjoyed by South Africans and Ghanaians, have remained “permanently
closed” through the directive principle of state policies. The term citizenship originally denoted residence of a city or, more
precisely, the status of the freemen of that city. Citizenship was concerned with freedom, whether it was the freedom from a self-
governing patrician elite in the cities of ancient Greece or Rome or the freedom from feudal servitude that had been won by
Burghers of the late medieval. Citizenship is a special status that has attendant rights and obligations and accords the citizen social

16

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

protections flowing from the social contract - not in my country. The development of citizenship, according to sociologist T. H.
Marshall (1950), has been a weapon for the amelioration of social inequalities based on class division. Being in sync with Alfred
Marshall, the economist, foresaw equality of opportunities and lifestyles, rather than material equality of income. T. H. Marshall
conceives citizenship through the effects of a meritocratic state education system as an alternative instrument of social stratification.
He further argued that full citizenship requires three components, which are the rights accompanying the status. Namely: civil rights,
political rights, and social rights. Hartley Dean distinguished. civil, rights as civil liberties, property, and legal rights, political rights
as voting and democratic rights, and social rights as entitlement to a basic standard of education and health and social care, housing,
and income maintenance. The afore-stated facts are applicable to the few holders of statutory citizenship who enslave the others and
redefined their status of citizenship in Nigeria.
Poverty is inimical to full citizenship, as the supposed function of social rights is to guarantee the satisfaction of human needs. The
relief of poverty may be a necessary condition for the achievement of human emancipation (Dean 2002).
In western societies where the social security system guarantees the subsistence needs of the citizens, it does so selectively, treating
different social groups differently. It functions to enforce particular patterns of family dependency and social exclusion. In Nigeria
unlike in Britain, there is no social legislation, the social objectives in the Nigerian constitution are not justiciable. Consequently; it
becomes trite to state that no Nigerian legislation guarantees the right to work, it rather imposes stringent conditions upon those
who are unemployed or who are incapable of work. Similarly, Nigerian social legislation does not guarantee a right to a home, nor
does the government care for the homeless, unless and except there is an outbreak of emergencies such as war, flooding, or inferno,
where the National Emergency Management Commission (NEMA) is occasionally set to task. Nigerian government possesses a
diminishing level of control over excessive housing costs. It does not protect the citizens’ rights to education, basic health, and social
care. The rights enunciated in Chapter II of the Constitution are not binding legal entitlements, but mere aspirational goals. The non-
justiciability of these rights is said to have been informed largely by fiscal constraints (Ibe 2010). Whither our bogus budgetary
allocations, including those meant for the phantom constituency project of our lawmakers? What is the business of the members of
the federal legislature with constituency project, if not for competition and duplication of the functions of the executive? Is it not
another window for money politics in a government that chants an anticorruption mantra?
Nigeria practices an expensive system where lips services have been paid to cutting down on the cost of governance. It has rather
resorted to an embarrassing cycle of indebtedness. Our lawmakers earn more than their counterparts in the developed world.

The Contractual Obligations between the Citizens and the Government

The theory of social contract as was propounded are similar among a trio of John Locke (1632 - 1704), Jean Jacques Rosseau (1712
- 1778), and Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) in their allusion to an imaginary state of nature, where the life of every man, according
to Hobbes was poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short, characterized by the war of all against all. However, there are pockets of
nuances. Locke’s political ideas were contained in the two treatises of government. The treatises were an attempt to tell the world
that the reign of ‘the ruler of the day was based on the consent of the People, thereby, demolishing the Biblical arguments in favor of
absolute royal sovereignty and to define “the true and original, extent, and end of government”. The state of nature, according to
Locke, was a period when men lived together, according to reasonable manners. They used their, reason to discover the laws of
nature, and having discovered the laws of nature, they lived according to them. The law of nature, according to Locke, was, given to
man by God and can be ascertained by reason. Due to selfish interest, the powerful started oppressing the weaklings, with no
medium for justice. Consequent to the injustices inherent in the state of nature, men abandoned the state of nature and enter into civil
or political society through a contract, where government, is just and fair as long as it fulfills its primary obligations of protection
through laws, courts, and when necessary, military action, while citizens reciprocate through obedience to the constituted authority.
Locke contended that the government, like citizens, is obliged to obey laws as well as avoid oppressive legislation. Government
cannot appropriate property without just cause or apply unwarranted taxes. “If it does, the people are absolved from obedience
when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties and properties”. - John Locke, 2nd Treatise p. 38.
While the rebuilding of western societies such as France and the United States of America through their respective revolutions, were
predicated on the Lockean Second Treatise, leadership in Africa was modeled on the Hobbesian absolute authority of the sovereign.
This is the crisis of governance in postcolonial Africa, which, according to Claude Ake (1996), has remained as it were during the
colonial period, - totalistic in scope, statist in the economy, narrow in social base, and relying on coercion rather than on authority.
There is an absolute loss of trust in the leadership of Nigeria, as it is in other African countries.
Comparatively, President Clinton of the United States of America submitted to the rule of law in Monica Lewinsky v Clinton. Jacob
Zuma and Dilma Rousseff of South Africa and Brazil respectively stepped down as presidents on allegations of corrupt practices.
Gordon Brown of Britain designed to demonstrate the value of personal integrity in the ‘Brexit milieu’, in contrast, former Nigerian
Senate President Abubakar Bukola Saraki’s display of panache and arrogance upon charges of corruption with no remorse, refusal of
President Muhammadu Buhari to resign or sack the Service Chiefs in the face pandemic insecurity in Nigeria calls for a rethink of
leadership in Nigeria. The failure of governance cannot be more apparent than it is now when massive looting is daily being

17

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

recorded in the midst of pandemic wholesale insecurity from kidnappers, terrorists, bandits who have recorded unparalleled success
in the 11th December 2020 kidnap of more than three hundred schoolboys in Kankara boarding school in Katsina State, home of
President Muhammadu Buhari while he was on weeklong visit, in addition to the February 19 th, 2018 kidnap of one hundred and ten
schoolgirls of the Government Girls’ Science and Technical College, Dapchi, Yunusari Local Government Area of Yobe State, and
2014 abduction of more than two hundred and seventy Chibok School Girls in Chibok town, south of Borno State, Nigeria.

Structural Deficit in Nigerian Federalism

The issues attached to the structural deficit of the Nigerian federation are numerous. Therefore, sparse mention shall be made here.
The division of the constituent parts of the country originally from three regions to four in 1964, and twelve states in 1967, and
further to nineteen states in 1976, to twenty-one states in 1987, thirty states in 1991, and finally to thirty-six states in 1993. Have
been products of response to problems of structural imbalance where one of the original three, northern Nigeria is bigger in size and
population than the other two combined. There may have been structural imbalances, which warrant adjustment. It is only in Nigeria
that the president and commander in chief of the armed forces can claim to be arm-twisted to sign a corruption-laden budget. The
ship of governance has been hijacked by political pirates for a long while, and nobody protested! Those who dared to protest against
police brutality in October 2020 were tagged, “enemy of the state”.
Evidence abounds on the fact that the autonomy of the subnational levels of government has been violated severally in the history of
the Nigerian quasi-federal arrangement.
1. Under the 1951 constitution, the national government was empowered to legally override the regional government in all
matters (Nwabueze).
2. Under the 1960 constitution, the national government was constitutionally empowered to remove the representative organs
of a regional government and take over, the administration of government. This was demonstrated in the attempts at
resolving the western region leadership crisis.

The Root of Discontent

Restructuring debate is not new to the Nigerian political discourse. It is as old as the country. Agitations for restructuring are at
different-times reactions to an apparent colossal failure of the Nigerian state in delivering the dividends of the social contract. These
agitations are being cloaked under the façade of a myriad of problems associable with Nigeria: resource control agitations and self-
determination consciousness, unequal opportunities and the quest for freedom, religious pluralism, bad leadership, dislocation of
ethnic balances, electoral fraud, corruption, and insecurity, etc.
The discontent is rooted in the failure of the Nigerian state to alleviate the poverty of the masses in the face of apparent but
unchallenged political corruption. The failure of the Nigerian state in solving the existential problems of the common man is prima
facie counterproductive for Nigerian federalism. The renewal of the calls for restructuring earlier championed by the disgruntled
politicians, and people who felt disfavoured by the present political equations, and have been pushed to the margin of political
leadership, was exacerbated by the reality of poor economic conditions of most Nigerians, coupled with economic recession and the
glaring manifestation of the faces of corruption uncovered by the partial anti-corruption drive of the Buhari Administration. The
bitterness of the island of poverty in the sea of plenty, the untold stories of human carnage (Boko Haram/herdsmen/kidnappers’
exploit) - and the dimming rays of hope heralded by the euphoria of APC’s change, increasingly popularized the agitation for
restructuring. The question at this juncture is:

What is a perfect structure and how do we attain it in Nigeria?

A perfect structure would have been a reversal to the pre-1967 regional arrangement in which each of the regions was actively
involved in resource control and independent development drives. A perfect structure would have been one in which ethnic identity
and identity based on the state of origin would be eradicated so that Nigerianisation would be the substituted means of identity so
that appointments and electioneering will be based on merit, rather than on ethnoreligious primordial sentiments and quota system
being used to court mediocrity in serious national businesses, as it is today.
Such a restructuring of Nigeria may not be feasible with the current 36-state structure because nationalities and ethnic identities
transcend their geographical boundaries. There can however be no consensus among the contenders for restructuring on a model to
follow as the disparate agitations represent disparate interests. The result will always be a stalemate. This explains why the
resolutions of the preceding constitutional conferences were not enforceable. A perfect structure cannot be obtained by secessionist
threats, sectional, and ethnoreligious jingoism, a perfect structure is only obtained through the class consciousness of the masses, and
their resolve to fight corruption as means of reclaiming what is rightly theirs through active participation in nation-building and their
abstinence from hero-worshipping of our common tormentors.

Recommendations

18

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com
 International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 4/Issue 3/March 2021

Legislation through the amendment of section 6 (6) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the justiciability
of the provisions of the social objectives in the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy is imperative for the
national assembly. Their inclusion within the Exclusive Legislative List under item 60(a) is a demonstration that they can be turned
into enactments by the National Assembly, as was done in India.
To expand the social safety nets, the institutionalization of tax-financed, non-contributory schemes to address the needs of the
informal sector of the economy is recommended.
The strengthening of the local government administration in Nigeria is key to the attainment of even development, far greater than
those attained during the the1954 - l966 regional government.
There is an urgent need to establish and adequately equip state police in Nigeria to fight the emergent trends of crime. This goes
concomitantly with the imperative of devolution of power to conform to true federalism so that there will be interdependence and
autonomy characteristic of a federal system, rather than the unitary system disguised as federalism as is presently constituted in
Nigeria.
Constitutionalism, rather than ethno-sectional interests should color our concern for restructuring.

References
[1]. Anifalaje, K. (2017). Implementation of the right to social security in Nigeria, African Human Rights Law Journal. Vol. 17 No. 2
Pretoria.
[2]. Dean, H. (2002) Welfare rights and social policy. Prentice-Hall.
[3]. Honore, A. M. (1968). ‘Social justice’ in R. S. Summer (ed) Essays in legal philosophy 61 62.
[4]. Hornby, A. S. (2015). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (International Students’ Eighth Edition). Oxford University Press.
[5]. Ibe, S. (2010). ‘Implementing economic, social and cultural rights in Nigeria: Challenges and opportunities’ 10 African Human Rights
Law Journal 203.
[6]. Ige, B. (1995). Constitution and the problem of Nigeria, the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Lagos.
[7]. Malemi, E. (2012). The Nigerian Constitutional Law. Princeton Publishing Company.
[8]. Marshall, T. H. (1950). ‘Citizenship and social class’, reprinted in Marshall, T. H., and Bottomore, T. (1992). Citizenship and Social
Class. Pluto Press.
[9]. Nwabueze, B. 0. (1989). Social security in Nigeria. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Report of the CDC Vol. 1 Lagos, 1977
p. ix
[10]. CASES
[11]. Adaka Boro v The Republic (1966) All NLR 263 Sc.
[12]. Attorney General of Ogun State v. Attorney General of the Federation SC 53/1981 of 05/02/1982
[13]. D’Emden v. Pedder (1904) 1 C.L.R. 91 ATP. 111

19

© 2021, IJASRW, All right reserved

https://www.ijasrw.com