How to forestall unending insecurity in Nigeria

Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, is home to more than 200 million people. With about 250 ethnic nationalities, Nigeria is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Despite its immense and diverse population, however, only a few ethnic groups dominate the national conversation and the political space: the Hausa, the Igbo, the Ijaw and the Yoruba. These ethnic groups and a few minorities constitute the socio-cultural fabric of the country.

The Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, make up the majority of the population. The Hausa alone account for about 30%, while the Igbo and the Yoruba each make up approximately 15% of the population. The Fulani, often grouped with the Hausa, represent about 6% of the population. Smaller tribes, like the Tiv, Kanuri, Ibibio and Ijaw also play significant roles in Nigeria’s socio-political landscape, though they are often marginalized in the national discourse.

For several decades, the unequal distribution of power among Nigeria’s various tribes has continued to fuel resentment among them and this has been hugely responsible for the country’s longstanding issues of socio-economic instability.

As a matter of fact, tribal sentiment is always deeply ingrained in Nigerian politics. From local to presidential campaigns, ethnic loyalty often trumps national unity. It is a usual practice for politicians to mainly appeal to their ethnic populations, with promises to advance the interests of their tribe, if elected into public office.

This tribal sentiment inevitably creates a political environment where national interests become often subjected to ethnic affiliations. In virtually every election, Nigerian politicians use tribalism as a tool to rally support, promising regional development or resource allocation in exchange for votes. This approach has not only deepened ethnic divisions but also perpetuated a cycle of corruption and poor governance. For instance, in the northern region, leaders are more likely to distribute resources to fellow Hausa-Fulani than to other ethnic groups, even if those groups reside within the same state.

Tribal politics creates the scope for public resources to be allocated on the basis of ethnic loyalty rather than merit. In northern Nigeria, for instance, Hausa-Fulani leaders who often control key political offices use their influence to allocate contracts, appointments, and other resources to their tribesmen. A clear evidence of this nepotism was demonstrated during the tenure of Gen. Muhammadu Buhari as President of Nigeria and Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces. All the key offices of federal government, from President to Senate President, to Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, to Chief Judge of the Federation, to Comptrollers of Prisons, Fire Service and Immigration, to Secretary to the Federal Government, to the Chief of Army Staff, to the Defence Minister and much more were all allocated to his northern tribesmen by President Buhari. That pattern is now being replicated in the south, where Yoruba and Igbo leaders are beginning to prioritize their ethnic group’s interests.

Naturally, this system of ethnic patronage has only continued to encourage a culture of nepotism and corruption in Nigeria’s public sector. Public funds meant for infrastructure, education, and healthcare become often siphoned into private bank accounts to benefit ethnic allies, while the majority of the population suffers from poor services and underdevelopment. Tribalism negatively affected the distribution of oil wealth in the Niger Delta. The Ijaw and other ethnic groups within the Delta Region felt marginalized despite the region’s immense contribution to Nigeria’s oil revenue.

Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe
In many ways, tribalism severely hindered Nigeria’s development. The competition for resources and power between ethnic groups led to a fractured national identity, making it difficult for the government to implement cohesive policies that could benefit all citizens. Instead, each ethnic group vied for control of the central government in order to secure resources for its region, resulting in short-term, regionally-focused policies rather than long-term national development strategies.

Consequently, Nigeria's insecurity became an enduring problem, manifesting in various forms across different regions. From insurgencies and banditry in the North to militancy in the Niger Delta and the reign of unknown gunmen in the southeast, Nigeria became riddled with security challenges that threatened the very foundation of its nationhood. These challenges were deeply connected to the country’s ethnic and tribal composition, which often inflamed conflicts rather than mitigate them.

In the North, Boko Haram insurgency, which began in 2009, devastated communities. What started as a religiously motivated extremist movement metamorphosed into a complex conflict driven by socio-economic inequality, political marginalization, and ethnic divisions. Boko Haram’s activities led to the deaths of thousands, displacement of millions from their ancestral homes, and contributed to a humanitarian crisis in the region. The group’s activities were mostly concentrated in the north-eastern states, primarily inhabited by the Kanuri ethnic group, whose members were already feeling politically and economically marginalized.

In the Middle Belt, the pastoral conflict between Fulani herdsmen and local farmers often escalated into widespread violence. The Fulani, who were predominantly nomadic herders, always clashed with farmers over grazing land and water resources. These disputes often took on ethnic colouration, as local tribes perceived the Fulani as invaders. Government's inability to effectively mediate these conflicts allowed them to spiral into full-blown violence, leaving hundreds dead and many more wounded or displaced.

The Niger Delta, home to the Ijaw and other minority tribes, had been another hotbed of insecurity. For decades, the region had been plagued by militancy, driven by demands for greater control of oil revenues, and environmental justice. The Ijaw and other ethnic groups in the Delta Region felt that despite being the source of Nigeria’s oil wealth, they remained largely impoverished and marginalized, with little or nothing to show for the billions the oil industry generated. The resultant militancy, characterized by sabotage of oil infrastructure, kidnapping, and armed conflict, destabilized the region and seriously affected the country’s economy.

Sir Ahmadu Bello and Chief Obafemi Awolowo

A major reason for Nigeria's persistent insecurity has been the failure of the centralized governance that was introduced into the system by the military. The federal government, based in Abuja, has continued to struggle to effectively address the diverse security challenges facing the country. And it has continued to fail. Its failure is partly rooted in Nigeria's complex ethnic composition and the resulting tribal loyalties that often undermine national unity. The federal government’s inability to deal effectively with Boko Haram insurgency, Fulani herdsmen violence, Niger Delta militancy and the reign of the unknown gunmen of the southeast demonstrates the limits of centralized governance in such a diverse and ethnically fragmented country as Nigeria. Federal security forces, including the police and military, are often perceived as biased or ineffective, particularly when dealing with conflicts involving ethnic minorities. This has led from diminishing trust to a complete lack of trust in the central government’s ability to provide security and maintain law and order.

Beyond that, the government’s response to these crises was often reactive rather than proactive, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes. For example, military crackdowns in the North and Niger Delta did little or nothing to address the underlying issues of poverty, inequality, and marginalization that fuelled these conflicts. Instead of long-term solutions aimed at economic development, political inclusion, and social justice, the government’s reliance on brute force only intensified grievances. Nigeria’s federal system, intended to promote unity, instead became a battleground for ethnic groups seeking to secure their share of the national pie. This constant tug-of-war contributed to the country’s chronic underdevelopment, as funds that should have been used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, and education were being diverted to serve tribal interests.

Since its independence in 1960, Nigeria has continued to grapple with this challenge of uniting its diverse tribes into a cohesive nation-state. The country’s history of military coups, civil war, and ongoing insurgencies highlight the fragility of this union. Although the national motto preaches unity in diversity, the reality on the ground is far from it. The incessant friction between the tribes and the federal government’s inability to address the root causes of this discord raise a pressing question: is Nigeria truly better off as one huge and indivisible nation, or should its tribes now be allowed to form independent nations of their own?

Before the military’s interference in Nigeria’s political evolution, the country’s four regions—north, west, east, and south-south—were organized around the major tribes. This regional structure allowed for a degree of autonomy, enabling each tribe to govern itself according to its custom and tradition, social systems, and priorities. The military’s consolidation of power in Nigeria, with the connivance of civil servants, disrupted this balance, imposing a federal structure that increasingly alienated the regions and the tribes. The centralization of power in Abuja led to the erosion of regional autonomy, replacing the previously semi-autonomous regions with a federal structure where power was concentrated at the centre. This shift caused deep-seated tribal and regional tensions to manifest, as ethnic groups that had previously governed themselves now had to contend with the dominance of a central government.

Consequently, Nigeria has continued to face a series of existential crises, from chronic insecurity to widespread corruption, all of which stem from the forced amalgamation of these diverse ethnic groups by the military. And I make haste to suggest that it is time to consider a bolder solution: allowing Nigeria’s major tribes to become independent nations. This approach should forestall the unending insecurity that has evidently beclouded the country. It should be able to restore peace in the region by enabling the tribes to govern themselves according to their own values and systems.

The 1967-1970 Nigerian civil war, sparked by the secession of the Eastern Region highlighted the dangers of forced unity. The war, also known as the Biafran War, was a manifestation of the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Nigeria. Although the war ended with the surrender of the Biafran forces, the underlying issues of ethnic marginalization, resource control, and regional autonomy remain unresolved to this day. Today, Nigeria’s political system is still shaped by these tribal divisions. Political parties often align themselves along ethnic lines, with politicians using their tribal affiliations to gain support. For instance, the Hausa-Fulani have traditionally dominated the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), while the Yoruba have had significant influence in the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Igbo in the Labour Party (LP), the third force that almost swooped Nigerians off their feet during the last election with its sheer ferocity. This tribalism undermines the concept of national unity, as politicians prioritize their ethnic group’s interests over those of the nation as an entity.

Another major problem is that the social structure of Northern Nigeria is predominantly feudalistic, deeply rooted in Islamic traditions and customs. The north is primarily inhabited by the Hausa-Fulani, with Islam as the dominant religion. In this system, society is divided into two broad classes: the aristocracy, made up of emirs and wealthy families, and the poor masses. Wealth and status in the north are often inherited, and the concept of social mobility is limited. If you are born into a wealthy family, you remain wealthy, and if you are born into poverty, it is likely you will stay poor. Religion plays a significant role in reinforcing this feudalistic structure. The Islamic system of governance in the north, which includes Sharia law in some states, upholds the division between the rich and poor. This creates a rigid social hierarchy, where power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority of the population remains disenfranchised.

The feudalistic nature of northern society also affects the region’s approach to governance. The political elite in the north, primarily the Hausa-Fulani aristocracy, are accustomed to wielding unchecked power and are less inclined to embrace democratic values such as accountability, transparency, and social justice. This results in a political system where corruption, nepotism, and patronage are rampant and encouraged.

In contrast to the north, Southern Nigerians, particularly the Igbo and Yoruba regions, operate a more republican and fluid social structure. The south, which is predominantly Christian, has a more diverse socio-economic system that allows for upward social mobility. Here, there are three main social classes: the upper class, comprising of wealthy elites who own big businesses and political influence, the middle class, which is further divided into upper and lower middle class, and the lower class. Unlike the north, where wealth is often inherited, the south provides opportunities for individuals to rise from poverty to affluence through education, entrepreneurship, and hard work. Social mobility is more common in the south, and it is not unusual for someone born into a poor family to achieve financial success and upward mobility. The south’s republican system encourages competition, meritocracy, and innovation, which contrasts sharply with the north’s feudalistic structure. The stark differences between the northern and southern social systems make it difficult for the government and people of Nigeria to create a cohesive national identity. The north’s feudalism and the south’s republicanism are fundamentally incompatible, and attempts to integrate these systems have only led to tensions and conflict. The north’s aristocracy always resists reforms that would threaten their power and privilege, while the south pushes for more democratic governance and social justice.

Chief Anthony Enahoro and Dr. Michael Okpara

This divide is further complicated by religion, with the predominantly Muslim north and Christian south often finding themselves at odds over such issues as Sharia law mentioned several times in the constitution without one word about Christianity, over education and women’s rights. These deep-rooted differences make it nearly impossible for Nigeria to function as a united country under a centralized system of governance. The continued failure to bridge these gaps has resulted in recurring conflicts, from the Boko Haram insurgency in the north to the Niger Delta militancy in the south.

In Nigeria, ethnicity and insecurity are closely intertwined. Ethnic groups often feel that their security concerns are neglected by the central government and this has led to the proliferation of ethnic militias and vigilante groups. These militias, whether in the North, Middle Belt, or South, are often formed to defend the interests of their ethnic group against perceived external threats, contributing to further instability. In some cases, politicians exploit ethnic tensions for political gain, manipulating local conflicts to consolidate power. This has been evident in the North, where political elites have been accused of using Boko Haram as a tool to destabilize opposition regions or pressure the federal government for more resources. Similarly, in the Niger Delta, militancy has been used as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from the central government, further complicating the security landscape.

Given the persistent insecurity and failure of centralized governance, one of the most viable solutions for Nigeria would possibly be to allow its major tribes to form independent nations. Granting tribes the right to self-determination could address many of the underlying issues fuelling insecurity, such as political marginalization, economic inequality, and ethnic divisions. Self-determination would allow each tribe to govern itself according to its own customs, values, and priorities. This autonomy would foster greater political inclusion, as ethnic groups would no longer have to compete for power within a centralized system that often excludes minorities. Instead, they would focus on governing themselves, crafting policies that directly address their unique needs and concerns.

For example, the Hausa-Fulani in the North could continue their feudalistic system, with religious and traditional leaders playing a pivotal role in governance. The Yoruba and Igbo in the South could maintain their more republican and democratic systems, which allow for social mobility and individual entrepreneurship. The Ijaw and other tribes in the Niger Delta could control their oil wealth and use it to develop their region, rather than rely on federal government to distribute resources inequitably. Nationalizing tribalism, or allowing tribes to become nations, would definitely help to minimize the friction and illegalities that have plagued Nigeria for decades. By formalizing tribal identities into sovereign nations, these groups could focus on their own internal governance and development rather than competing with other tribes for control of the federal government.

One of the key advantages of nationalizing tribalism is that it would reduce the ethnic competition for power at the federal level. In the current system, each ethnic group vies for control of the presidency, the National Assembly, and key government ministries in order to secure resources for its region. We know from experience that this competition only fuels corruption, nepotism, and inefficiency, as politicians prioritize their ethnic group’s interests over national development. By contrast, if each tribe had its own nation, there would be absolutely no need for this kind of competition. Each tribe could focus on developing its own economy, infrastructure, and political system, free from the constraints and conflicts of the federal system. This would likely result in greater political stability and economic development of the region, as tribes would be able to govern themselves according to their own values and priorities.

In a true democracy, any federating state that feels it can no longer belong to the union should have the right to secede peacefully. Marriage should not be forced, and the same principle applies to nationhood. If a particular tribe or region feels that its interests are not being represented in the central government, it should have the right to form its own nation. Several examples from around the world demonstrate that peaceful secession can lead to greater stability and development. The breakup of Yugoslavia, for instance, allowed different ethnic groups to form their own nations and govern themselves according to their own traditions and values. Although the process was initially violent, the eventual formation of independent nations like Croatia and Slovenia has led to greater political stability and economic growth in these regions.

Similarly, the peaceful breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 has been hailed as a model of peaceful secession. Both countries have gone on to become stable, prosperous democracies, free from the ethnic tensions that characterized their former union. And back in Africa, Sudan and Southern Sudan on the one hand, and Ethiopia and Eritrea on the other hand are typical examples that heavens will not fall if ethnic tribes are allowed to acquire national sovereignty.

In the case of Nigeria, allowing tribes to secede peacefully would prevent the kind of violent conflict that has plagued the country for decades. Rather than forcing diverse ethnic groups to coexist in a centralized system that does not adequately represent their interests, peaceful secession would allow each tribe to chart its own path toward stability and development.

Nigeria's National Assembly

In any case, for Nigeria to nationalize its tribes and allow them to form independent nations, a carefully thought-out roadmap must be created. This process should begin with a national dialogue involving all key stakeholders, including traditional leaders, political elites, civil society, the intellectual class and the international community. The dialogue should focus on creating a peaceful framework for tribal secession, ensuring that the process is transparent, democratic, and inclusive.

The key steps in this process might include referendums where each region or tribe holds a plebiscite to determine whether or not the people actually want to secede from Nigeria and form their own nation. This process should be overseen by an independent electoral commission and international observers to ensure fairness. Constitutional reform would also be on the table as a matter of necessity. The Nigerian constitution must be amended to allow for peaceful secession. Currently, the constitution does not provide a legal framework for secession, making it difficult for regions or tribes to leave the union without conflict. A constitutional amendment should outline the legal steps for secession, including referendums, negotiations, and the division of assets and liabilities.

After a successful referendum, the seceding tribe or region should enter into negotiations with the federal government to determine the terms of their exit. These negotiations should focus on such issues as the division of natural resources, the status of minority groups within the seceding region, and the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations between the new nation and Nigeria. Critics of tribal secession often raise concerns about the feasibility of small, independent tribal nations. These concerns include the economic viability of these nations, the risk of further ethnic conflicts, and the potential for international isolation. These concerns can be addressed with careful planning and international support.

Many of Nigeria’s tribes are located in resource-rich regions, giving them the economic potential to sustain themselves as independent nations. For example, the Yoruba region is home to Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, while the Ijaw and other tribes in the Niger Delta control the country’s oil wealth. Additionally, such international organizations as the United Nations and the African Union could play a role in mediating conflicts and ensuring that the process of tribal secession is peaceful and democratic. These organizations could also provide technical and financial assistance to help newly formed tribal nations build their economies, develop infrastructure, and establish diplomatic relations with other countries.

In the long term, allowing Nigerian tribes to become independent nations would lead to greater political stability, economic development, and social cohesion of the region now known as Nigeria. By giving each tribe the autonomy to govern itself, Nigeria could avoid the kind of ethnic conflicts that have plagued the country for decades. This would allow each tribe to focus on its own internal development, infusing a sense of ownership and responsibility for its own future. Moreover, tribal secession could lead to more efficient governance, as smaller, more homogenous nations are often better able to manage their resources and address the needs of their citizens. Without the burden of managing a large, diverse country, newly formed tribal nations could concentrate on improving their education systems, healthcare, infrastructure, and economy.

Nigeria, as it currently stands, is a country defined by deep ethnic, religious, and social divisions. These divisions have contributed to persistent insecurity, underdevelopment, and political instability. For decades, the country’s leaders have attempted to impose a sense of national unity, but this unity has proved elusive. Instead of forcing diverse ethnic groups to coexist within an artificial framework, it is time to consider a different path: allowing Nigeria’s tribes to become nations.

By granting tribes the right to self-determination, Nigeria could reduce ethnic conflict, promote political stability, and foster economic development. Nationalizing tribalism would allow each ethnic group to focus on its own internal governance and development, free from the constraints of the federal system. While the process of tribal secession would not be without challenges, the long-term benefits of this approach could lead to a more peaceful and prosperous future for all Nigerians. President Tinubu and the National Assembly should now be considering this option.

Asinugo is a London-based British-Nigerian veteran journalist, author and publisher of ROLU Business Magazine (Website: https://rolultd.com)