BOLA Tinubu seems to have misplaced his focus on the economy and restructuring. Rather than prioritizing constitutional reform as suggested by the Patriots, the President indicated that his primary concern lies with the economy, delaying political reengineering. This approach is problematic as it tackles issues in the wrong sequence, jeopardizing the success of his Presidency.
The foundation of economic prosperity lies in political systems. Tinubu’s decision to reorder the system is a critical error.
Nigeria veered off course significantly following the 1966 coup that toppled the First Republic. Since then, the country has inappropriately embraced a unitary political structure despite being a diverse nation. This deviation from federalism has had dire economic and political repercussions due to the lack of deliberate efforts to realign with federalist principles.
Since assuming office in May 2023, Tinubu has struggled against economic challenges. His attempts to address issues such as canceling petrol and electricity subsidies and floating the naira have not yielded positive results. The recent #EndBadGovernance protests highlighted the severity of Nigeria’s economic crisis over 10 tumultuous days.
Despite Tinubu’s economic reform initiatives, the currency has depreciated significantly, losing 68% of its value by February. The exchange rate now stands at around N1,600 to $1, a stark contrast from the pre-Tinubu rate of N465/$1. As multinationals exit the country, power generation remains low at 5,000 megawatts, and the infrastructure deficit is estimated at N17 trillion according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria.
Shortly after Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 presidential election, Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka cautioned that Tinubu’s economic endeavors would falter without addressing the need for restructuring in Nigeria.
Nigeria’s challenges precede Tinubu’s tenure, but it is concerning that the President is following the same path as his predecessors, neglecting the imperative of restructuring upon assuming office. Tinubu’s administration further exacerbated the situation by pushing for financial autonomy for local governments, disrupting the traditional balance between the central government and federating units.
Even before coming into power, Tinubu advocated for restructuring, exemplified by his establishment of 37 local council development authorities during his tenure as Lagos governor (1999-2007). His current stance on restructuring contradicts his past positions, indicating a concerning shift driven by political expediency.
Believing that the 1999 Constitution alone can stimulate economic revival is misguided. Kingsley Moghalu, a member of the Patriots, aptly described Nigeria’s current state as directionless, lacking a clear national purpose and identity.
Presently, Nigeria is more fragmented than it has been since the end of the Civil War in 1970. The Federal Government’s extensive control, with 68 items on the Exclusive Legislative List, contrasts starkly with other federal constitutions worldwide that emphasize devolved power, fiscal federalism, and decentralized policing. In multicultural societies, federalism proves to be the most effective governance model.
Therefore, Tinubu must demonstrate the required strategic acumen to kickstart Nigeria’s restructuring rather than divert attention to superficial financial autonomy for local governments.
A return to the principles of the First Republic constitution is paramount. Back then, regions enjoyed autonomy with their police forces and retained 50% of their revenues, contributing 30% to a distributable pool and 20% to the central government. Presently, the disproportionate allocation of revenue sees the center claiming 52.6%, leaving states with 26.7% and local governments with a meager 20.6%.
Without realigning with these fundamental tenets, Tinubu risks leaving behind a legacy of unresolved issues and shortcomings.