Nigeria’s complex history of colonial borders, ethnic diversity and federal tensions fuels ongoing instability, corruption and secessionist aspirations.
Nigeria, often referred to as the Giant of Africa, is the most populous country on the continent. Over half of its population are Muslims, followed by Christians, with the remainder belonging to various other faiths. Ethnic groups in the country include the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Tiv, Jogon and Igala.
Nigeria, often referred to as the Giant of Africa, is the most populous country on the continent. Over half of its population are Muslims, followed by Christians, with the remainder belonging to various other faiths. Ethnic groups in the country include the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Tiv, Jogon and Igala. © Getty Images
×
In a nutshell
Colonial amalgamation merged diverse regions and sowed division
Federalism has deepened ethnic rivalries, not national unity
Corruption and unrest threaten the country’s fragile stability
Nigeria is a compelling testament to the challenges of creating a federal yet unified state within artificial colonial boundaries, and among deep-seated fragmentation. The region that is now Nigeria spans a territory characterized by rich ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. Many political systems evolved over different periods and locations, such as the Sokoto Caliphate, the Kingdom of Nri and the Hausa city-states.
During the colonial period, the administration in Nigeria operated with a degree of decentralization. The present-day borders of Nigeria emerged from negotiations between British and French interests. In 1914, British Governor Sir Frederick Lugard merged the Northern Nigeria Protectorate with the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, creating one administrative unit known as the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Lugard characterized this process, called amalgamation, as a forced marriage between a “poor husband” (the North) and a “rich wife” (the South). Despite this unification, the two regions continued to be managed separately until 1946.
The 1946 Constitution formalized regionalism in Nigeria by establishing three distinct regions: the North, West and East. The northern region was the largest and consequently enjoyed greater political representation in the legislative assembly. This arrangement led to feelings of inequality among the other areas, raising concerns about unbalanced regionalism. In 1954, six years before Nigeria gained independence, a federal system was introduced, comprising regional governments in the North, South and East, alongside a central government in Lagos. This setup intensified political competition between states, overshadowing the growing sense of nationalism at the time.
In Nigeria, one can draw a connection between the three regions defined by the Niger and Benue Rivers and their corresponding major ethnic groups: the Hausa in the North Zone, the Yoruba in the South West Zone and the Igbo in the South East Zone. However, this categorization can be overly simplistic and reductionist. In a nation of 220 million people with over 200 ethnic groups and dialects, the divisions and differences extend far beyond a simple three-way compartmentalization.
Without a shared history and a common vision for the future, efforts to build a democratic nation-state in Nigeria have failed so far.
×
Facts & figures
Geopolitical zones of Nigeria
Nigeria, officially known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is divided into six geopolitical zones that function as administrative divisions. These zones group states with similar ethnic backgrounds or political histories. With approximately 400 ethnic groups and 525 languages, this structure facilitates effective resource allocation across the country.
Nigeria, officially known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is divided into six geopolitical zones that function as administrative divisions. These zones group states with similar ethnic backgrounds or political histories. With approximately 400 ethnic groups and 525 languages, this structure facilitates effective resource allocation across the country. © GIS
Diversity in (dis)unity
Nigeria is marked by widespread corruption, a declining security situation and escalating violence between herders and farmers in the Plateau State. Religious extremism in the North and secessionist movements in the South highlight the state’s extreme fragility. Furthermore, Nigerian federalism’s structure has amplified rather than mitigated political, regional and ethnic divisions, failing to strike a proper balance between differentiation and integration.
Since gaining independence, Nigeria has seen six different federal constitutions and various regimes. Its journey underscores the difficulties of establishing a functional federal system that balances a unitary state while honoring the diversity and autonomy of its regions. It involves a practical sharing of powers between the central government and the states.
The First Republic ruled Nigeria between 1963 and 1966. It operated as a democratic and constitutional government modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system. However, tensions stemming from ethno-regional divisions marred the political landscape.
A mix of factors contributed to this unrest, including significant socio-economic disparities among the three main regions, a leadership crisis within one of the dominant parties (the Action Group), conflicts over the results of the 1963 population census, widespread distrust in electoral politics and various corruption scandals. These issues ultimately culminated in a civil war, leading to a coup, a countercoup and the rise of a military regime.
The first coup occurred in 1966, orchestrated by Igbo generals from the Southeast. This was followed by a countercoup led by northern generals, which sparked violent pogroms against the Igbo people. In 1967, Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu spearheaded the secession of the eastern region, declaring himself the president of the Republic of Biafra. This led to a devastating 30-month conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 1 million individuals, either through violence or famine. Although the Biafran movement was defeated, aspirations for secession have persisted and recently gained renewed momentum.
June 1968: Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu (center), the military governor of Biafra, inspects his troops. The Nigerian Civil War, often referred to as the Biafran War, lasted for two and a half years and was fought in response to Biafra’s attempt to secede from Nigeria.
June 1968: Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu (center), the military governor of Biafra, inspects his troops. The Nigerian Civil War, often referred to as the Biafran War, lasted for two and a half years and was fought in response to Biafra’s attempt to secede from Nigeria. © Getty Images
Today, approximately 40 million Igbos, making up around 18 percent of the country’s population, live in southeastern Nigeria. A large majority are Roman Catholic. Historically, the Igbo community has organized itself into relatively autonomous political units and developed a robust apprenticeship system. It is often recognized for its strong entrepreneurial spirit.
After the tumultuous events of the First Republic era, the Second Republic (1979-1983) saw a return to civilian governance and competitive party politics, though this occurred under a more centralized constitution. However, the victory of a northern candidate in the presidential elections sparked uprisings in both the South West and South East, set against a backdrop of widespread corruption and economic turmoil. This unrest ultimately led to a military coup in 1983 and a dictatorship for the following 16 years.
When civilian rule was restored in 1999, an unwritten agreement (known as zoning) stipulated that the presidency and vice presidency should alternate between candidates from the north and south, across the country’s six geopolitical zones.
In addition to this informal approach, Nigeria’s federal structure operates through a three-tier system that comprises the national government, 36 states and 774 local governments. The introduction of the zoning mechanism highlights the reality that, while ideological differences among the main political parties could be identified, competition was primarily influenced by regional and ethnic factors. These aspects became increasingly important as political elites vied for control over a highly centralized and extractive apparatus.
Read more from African affairs expert Teresa Nogueira Pinto
This rising prominence of regional and ethnic divisions was clear during the 2023 presidential elections: The current president, Bola Tinubu, the candidate of the All-Progressives Congress, is a Yoruba Muslim; Atiku Abubakar, a Muslim from the Northeast, represented the People’s Democratic Party; and Peter Obi, a Christian and a member of the Igbo group from the Southeast, was the flagbearer of the Labour Party.
The candidate profiles and the selection of vice presidents, which were intended to create a balanced ticket, underscored how political and programmatic differences were often overshadowed by ethnic, religious and regional identities. Furthermore, the opposition challenged the election results, while both the campaign and the voting process were tainted by instances of ethnic violence, especially targeting the Igbo community.
Perverse incentives
One of the key issues stems from a system of perverse incentives. In Nigeria, states do not have the independence to generate revenue from the resources located within their borders, unlike in most other federal systems. The country’s political structure and economic framework remain highly centralized, failing to adhere to the principles of true federalism, where both regional and federal governments should share policymaking power equally. This situation has two significant consequences: First, it negatively affects the most resource-rich or productive states; second, it exacerbates issues of poor governance, diminishing accountability and undermining the principle of subsidiarity.
This system of perverse incentives was further worsened by major oil discoveries in the 1950s and the establishment of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company in 1977, which aimed to centralize the management of oil revenues. This led to a consolidation of top-down federalism, characterized by heavy bureaucracy and intricate patronage networks.
As a result, competition over access to the central extractive system became the primary focus for the political elite. This situation undermined the derivation principle, which dictated that revenues should be distributed proportionally based on their source. Consequently, states were stripped of the autonomy, responsibility and motivation needed to exploit, develop and manage their resources effectively.
Sep. 6, 2022: Members of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria protest in Abuja against the theft of crude oil.
Sep. 6, 2022: Members of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria protest in Abuja against the theft of crude oil. © Getty Images
The approach has not only created inefficiencies but has also sparked resentment and ethnic grievances, particularly among so-called “oil minorities,” which include ethnic groups from oil-rich areas like the Ijaw. This discontent has become increasingly apparent in the Niger Delta region, where frustrations toward both the central government and multinational companies are on the rise. It is important to note that the demand for self-determination has been a significant issue in the Delta for over a century. However, since 2005, secessionist movements have gained prominence alongside a rise in attacks on oil infrastructure.
The dynamics of centralization, clientelism and the ethnicization of political competition exacerbate tensions among Nigerians and widen the gap between ordinary citizens and the political elite.
Turbulence in Nigeria
In May 2023, President Tinubu’s administration boldly chose to eliminate Nigeria’s long-standing fuel subsidies, aiming to redirect funds toward infrastructure and social programs. This policy shift sparked immediate unrest, with nationwide protests erupting over increased fuel prices and a significant rise in the cost of living.
By mid-2023, inflation had jumped over 24 percent, and transportation costs had doubled, disproportionately affecting urban poor and rural communities that rely on fuel for their livelihoods.
Oct. 1, 2024: In Lagos, a woman sells Nigerian flags during a protest tagged #FearlessInOctober over increased hunger, insecurity and economic hardship.
Oct. 1, 2024: In Lagos, a woman sells Nigerian flags during a protest tagged #FearlessInOctober over increased hunger, insecurity and economic hardship. © Getty Images
Although protests have decreased from their 2023 peak, sporadic unrest remains and disillusionment is rising, especially among Nigeria’s youth. This ongoing tension has strained governance as the Tinubu administration struggles to balance fiscal reform with social stability.
This economic strain amplifies governance challenges, as state governments are denied resource autonomy and depend on dwindling federal allocations. Stability hangs in the balance, with economic grievances increasingly intersecting with ethnic and regional tensions, which, if unaddressed, threaten to ignite further unrest.
×
Scenarios
How do the tensions between ethnic mobilization and political centralization affect governance and stability in Nigeria? Considering the current context, three main scenarios should be evaluated concerning Nigeria’s future.
Most likely: Nigeria will see an extended period of uncertainty
In the most likely scenario, Nigeria will experience a prolonged period of popular uprisings and ongoing localized armed conflicts. Additionally, separatist movements in the Delta region could become more prominent and fuel secession efforts in the former Biafra region. Such developments could lead to reevaluating regional and possibly national boundaries, paving the way for new forms of political organization less influenced by imported models, such as Western liberal democracy.
Likely: Rise in populist movement
In a second likely scenario, the country could experience a wave of populism that, while causing short-term instability, might also pave the way for stabilization. Several factors contribute to this possibility: the risk of a contagion effect, the significant influence of social media and the widespread disillusionment among a young, urban and disenfranchised population toward the political elite. However, the deep-rooted ethnic and regional divides make it less likely for a unified nationwide populist movement to emerge. Furthermore, even if such a movement were to bring stability and foster a sense of unity – like the periods of military rule – the country would still need to tackle the underlying institutional, political and economic issues that led to disunity to achieve a cohesive state.
Less likely: Political and institutional reform
A third and less likely scenario involves political and institutional reform through constitutional change. This outcome could emerge from a national dialogue that offers a federal approach capable of accommodating diversity through a more decentralized system. However, the political leaders who have the power to initiate this process have little motivation to do so; they are often direct beneficiaries of the current “rentier state” model and centralized governance.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.