The Silent Federal Revolution Driven By Nigeria’s Governors
FEDERALISM BY STEALTH
A Federation Still Under Construction
NIGERIA’S federal system has never been a settled arrangement. Though the Constitution defines the country as a federation, real political and economic authority for decades flowed overwhelmingly toward the centre. Abuja controlled security, major infrastructure, mineral resources, fiscal policy, and even much of the political machinery that determined outcomes at the state level. Governors, in practice, functioned more as administrators than autonomous leaders, dependent on monthly allocations and bound by federal constraints.
That balance is now shifting. Not through dramatic confrontations or constitutional ruptures, but through a gradual, calculated assertion of power by governors across the federation. In policy decisions, court battles, security interventions, revenue strategies, and regional alliances, state executives are redefining their roles—and, by extension, reshaping Nigeria’s federal structure.
“What we are seeing is not the collapse of federalism,” said Professor Rotimi Suberu, a leading scholar of constitutional governance. “It is a renegotiation driven by necessity. The old dependency model has become unsustainable.”
Why the Old Model Is Cracking
Several forces are pushing governors toward greater assertiveness. Persistent insecurity has exposed the limits of centralised control. Economic reforms—particularly fuel subsidy removal and currency liberalisation—have placed new fiscal burdens on states. Public trust in central authority has waned, while citizens increasingly demand visible, local results.
Governors have discovered that political survival now depends less on loyalty to Abuja and more on tangible performance. Roads, security, power supply, jobs, and revenue generation are no longer abstract policy goals; they are immediate political currencies.
This shift has produced a new class of governors—less deferential, more experimental, and increasingly willing to test the boundaries of constitutional authority.
Electricity: Power in Every Sense
Perhaps no sector symbolises this transformation more clearly than electricity. Recent constitutional amendments and enabling laws have weakened the federal monopoly over power generation, transmission, and distribution. For the first time, states possess meaningful legal space to intervene.
Some governors have moved swiftly, signing agreements with independent power producers, reviving dormant plants, and establishing state electricity markets. Others remain cautious, wary of regulatory overlap, funding challenges, and political risks. Still, the trajectory is clear.
“Electricity is the first real test of functional federalism,” said a southern governor who requested anonymity. “Once you provide power, you attract industry, create jobs, and people stop blaming Abuja for everything.”
Energy analysts agree that electricity reform has altered governance psychology. Control of power supply translates directly into economic growth and political goodwill—an equation not lost on either the states or the federal government.
Mining and the Politics of the Soil
Another flashpoint lies beneath Nigeria’s soil. States rich in lithium, gold, limestone, and other strategic minerals have grown increasingly frustrated with federal dominance over resource control. While Abuja retains constitutional ownership, states bear the environmental damage, community tensions, and security challenges that mining brings.
In response, governors are pushing for greater participation rather than outright control. Some states have introduced local permits, levies, and access regulations—often operating in legal grey zones. The federal government has responded cautiously, aware that heavy-handed enforcement could provoke political backlash.
“No state can continue to watch wealth leave its land while it shoulders poverty and insecurity,” a North-Central governor told investors, carefully framing his words as reformist rather than confrontational.
Security: When Governors Could No Longer Wait
Security failures have forced governors furthest beyond their traditional roles. Banditry, kidnapping, terrorism, and communal violence made reliance on federal intervention politically untenable. Regional and state-backed security outfits—Amotekun, Ebube Agu, and various community vigilante structures—have proliferated.
Though often operating in constitutional grey areas, these initiatives enjoy strong popular support. Governors may not command the armed forces, but they increasingly control logistics, intelligence networks, and local cooperation—forms of power that matter on the ground.
“When voters are angry and people are dying, theory takes a back seat,” said a retired military officer. “Governors are judged on outcomes, not excuses.”
Local Government Autonomy: The Political Undercurrent
The renewed debate over local government autonomy has further exposed tensions. Supreme Court rulings and reform efforts have challenged governors’ control over joint accounts and council finances. Publicly, many governors endorse autonomy. Privately, few are eager to surrender grassroots political leverage.
Local governments are not just administrative units; they are electoral structures. Control over them often determines delegates, party machinery, and voting outcomes.
“Anyone who thinks this debate is purely about governance is naive,” admitted a senior state official. “Local councils are power bases.”
Money, IGR, and the New Confidence
Beyond law and policy, money remains central. While FAAC allocations still matter, rising costs and voter expectations have pushed governors to prioritise Internally Generated Revenue. States that expand their revenue base gain confidence and bargaining power; those that do not remain dependent and politically weaker.
This has widened the gap between assertive and struggling states, reshaping intergovernmental dynamics.
Regionalism as Strategy
Regional development commissions have emerged as collective bargaining tools. Bodies like the NDDC and North East Development Commission allow states to pool influence, negotiate federal spending, and reinforce regional identity.
“Individually, states are weak. Regionally, we have leverage,” said a South-South governor.
Toward 2027 and Beyond
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, governors have become indispensable political actors—no longer junior partners, but kingmakers. Presidential aspirants must negotiate with them individually, not merely through party platforms.
Yet risks remain. Uneven state capacity could deepen inequality. Decentralisation without transparency could entrench local strongmen.
Still, the direction is unmistakable. Nigeria’s federal structure is being reshaped—not by decree, but by practice. And at the centre of that transformation stand the governors.
