The gods are not to blame

The Gods Are Not to Blame: How Early Constitutional Decisions Shaped Nigeria’s Present Crisis

Nigeria’s crisis did not begin with bullets, bombs, or banditry. It began with a pen — in quiet conference rooms where the country’s founding leaders made constitutional choices that still dictate its destiny today. As this investigation reveals, decisions taken more than sixty years ago continue to shape every conflict, every agitation, and every instability Nigeria faces in the 21st century.

More than a century after the 1914 Amalgamation, Nigerians still debate whether Lord Lugard planted the seed of the nation’s instability. But increasingly, constitutional historians argue that the roots of Nigeria’s turmoil run far deeper — not in British colonial offices, but in the decisions of the country’s early political leaders, who shaped the very structure of the federation at independence.

According to archival accounts and constitutional experts, one such moment occurred during the negotiations for Nigeria’s independence constitution, when Chief Obafemi Awolowo proposed a secession clause to allow any region dissatisfied with the union to freely withdraw. The clause, he believed, would prevent a forced union of incompatible nations and avert future conflict.

The Clause That Never Was

Political historian Dr. Ibrahim Danjuma of Ahmadu Bello University explains the significance of that pivotal debate:

“Awolowo was not advocating disunity. He simply understood that a voluntary union is stronger than a coerced one. His secession clause was a safety valve — a constitutional insurance policy against future violence.”

Yet, among the three regional leaders of the time, only one opposed the idea: Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, representing the Eastern Region. Azikiwe, confident that he would lead the new nation, reportedly believed such a clause would weaken Nigeria’s cohesion. His opposition not only halted the inclusion of a secession provision; he also supported the addition of a treason provision targeting any region that attempted to break away.

Dr. Onyeka Madu, a political analyst and archivist, puts it bluntly:

“The irony of Nigerian history is that the same region whose leader blocked the right to secede would later fight the most devastating secessionist war on the continent. It shows how decisions made in idealistic optimism can echo through decades.”

The Irony of History

Barely six years after independence, the Eastern Region — whose leader had dismissed the possibility of regional dissatisfaction — declared the Republic of Biafra. The civil war that followed claimed over a million lives.

Today, the region’s most vocal agitators for self-determination still inadvertently grapple with the structural consequences of Azikiwe’s stance. Legal scholars often point out that the treason charge used against contemporary secessionist figures stems directly from those early constitutional choices.

A senior constitutional lawyer, who handled several high-profile treason cases, noted:

“People blame the judiciary for harsh sentences in treason trials, but the courts can only apply the law they inherited. The founders deliberately made secession a capital offence. The judiciary didn’t create that framework — the framers did.”

Ironsi and the Unitary Turn

The constitutional rigidity deepened further under Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, whose 1966 Unification Decree abolished Nigeria’s federal regions and imposed a unitary system of government. Many historians argue that this move erased the delicate regional autonomy that held the young federation together.

Professor Saheed Olawale, a political scientist at the University of Lagos, states:

“Ironsi’s centralisation was the second major rupture. By stripping regions of autonomy and concentrating power at the centre, he inadvertently intensified ethnic suspicion. His decree destroyed the balance that allowed each region to thrive independently.”

His regime was short-lived, but the unitary model survived — entrenched first by the military and later by politicians who benefitted from its structure.

A Federation in Turmoil

With decades of over-centralisation and ethnic tensions, Nigeria now faces the consequences:

• Insecurity has spiralled to unprecedented levels.
• Local governments in the North are under the control of terrorist and bandit groups who extort taxes from residents.
• Kidnapping for ransom is a nationwide epidemic.
• Trust in national institutions has declined sharply.

Security analyst Kolawole Fasanya describes the situation starkly:

“We are witnessing an implosion of the federal model. The centre has become too weak to protect the peripheries, yet too powerful to allow the regions to protect themselves.”

The Search for a Way Forward

Across the country, political and civic leaders increasingly agree that Nigeria cannot continue on its current trajectory without risking collapse. Calls for a new constitutional framework have grown louder.

The proposed solution that many experts champion is a return to regional autonomy — a modernised version of the structure that existed at independence.

Under this system:

• Regions would control their resources and development.
• States would answer to regions, not Abuja.
• The Federal Government would retain control only of the armed forces and foreign affairs.
• Competition among regions would drive innovation, reduce dependency, and cool secessionist tensions.

Ambassador John Okorie, a former diplomat, summarises it this way:

“Nigeria is not a failed idea. It is an unfinished idea. We need a constitution that reflects our reality — not a military relic or colonial patchwork.”

A Four-Tier Governance Structure

The model proposed by several constitutional conferences includes:

1. The Federal Government – defence, currency, foreign affairs.
2. The Regional Governments – policing, resources, education, economy.
3. The States – internal administration.
4. Local Governments – grassroots governance.

Advocates argue that this would reduce over-centralisation, unleash regional productivity, and eliminate the unhealthy dependency on federal allocations.

Conclusion

Nigeria’s present turmoil is not the work of the gods — nor of one colonial administrator. It is the result of historical decisions made by leaders who, with the best intentions, created a structure that has proven incompatible with a diverse and complex society.

As insecurity worsens and national cohesion frays, Nigerians are finally confronting the constitutional choices their predecessors avoided. Whether the country can redesign itself before the centre collapses may be the defining political challenge of this generation.

🪶
J.J. Oluti
Creative Voice of Africa