There was a British-born conservative writer based in the US before his death. He said that when he decided to pursue writing as a profession, his mother advised him to write what leaders read. I took this advice to heart, although I am not writing for a living. I must ensure that, even when I write copiously, the reader does not have difficulty digesting the content. Instead of dwelling on vocabulary as journalists or professional writers do, I focus on citing sources properly. Again, if you want to write extensively, you must read voraciously, as one Oyinbo man once told me at the workplace — granted you still have your Nigerian accent, you don’t search for words to express yourself. I owe that to voracious reading.

Thank you so much, Sir, for the kind remarks. I believe my luck lies in having witnessed the peak of Nigerian journalism – the mid-80s to the 90s. I was fortunate to have a job when I finished grammar school, allowing me to buy any newspaper or magazine I wanted to read. I was particularly addicted to The Guardian and Newswatch. When Tell magazine was launched, I was in my final year, and to continue buying The Guardian and Tell weekly, I sacrificed my breakfast. What I want to emphasise is that, yes, God created me, but The Guardian newspaper shaped who I am today. When I publish an essay, some friends might say, "That's great research, Alex," but no, there is no research — I write from my head. The only time I do research is when I need to get a name right. For example, since I am not into European soccer, I didn’t know the name of the Ivorian striker who scored against Nigeria, so I had to research to find his name. Also, I can type without looking at the keyboard – thanks to my American experience and being a Microsoft-certified System Engineer. My ability to write in various fields stems from a special programme I took at Harvard – to graduate, you must take eight courses across the Business School, Kennedy School, Law, Computer Science, Arts, and Social Sciences. Finally, knowing my audience, I use Grammarly software for editing and proofreading. Yes, I consider myself lucky to have the resources to develop my craft and friends and family members who supported me when I was addicted to The Guardian. This addiction was so intense that when I spent holidays in Lagos, Rutham House was where I spent most afternoons. I would walk into their large hall that resembles a university common room, buy a Coke, and relax watching the workers go about their tasks. My favourite writers, besides the Guardian journalists, included Ray Ekpu, Dan Agbese, Nosa Igiebor, Dare Babarinsa, Onome Osifo Whiskey, and Dele Omotunde. That era was wonderful, and I gained immensely from it, which helped me understand Nigerian problems and how to address them.

Thank you so much, Sir, for the complimentary remarks. I believe what I have going on for me is that I am lucky to witness the pinnacle of Nigerian Journalism – the mid-80s to the 90s. I was lucky that I had a job when I graduated from grammar school, and I was able to buy any newspaper and magazine I wanted to read. I was specifically addicted to the Guardian and Newswatch. And when Tell magazine came out, I was in my final year at the time, and to be able to continue buying the Guardian and buying Tell weekly, I had to sacrifice my breakfast. What I am driving at is that yes indeed God created me, but the Guardian newspaper made me who I am today. Most of the time, when I publish an essay, some of my friends would say, That's great research, Alex, No, there is no research, I write them from my head. The only time I have to do research is when I want to get the name right. For instance, because I wasn’t into European soccer, I didn’t know the name of the Ivorian striker who scored that goal against Nigeria, so I had to do some research to get his name. Another thing is that I can type without looking at the key – thanks to my American journey and being a Microsoft-certified System Engineer. That I can right in various fields is a result of the special program I took at Harvard – to graduate, you have to take eight different courses that cut across the Business School, Kennedy School, Law, Computer, Art and Social Sciences. Finally, knowing my audience, I use Grammarly software for editing and proofreading. Yes, I count myself lucky that I have the resources to develop my craft and the friends and fa,ily members who stood by me when I was addicted to the Guardian. The addition was such that when I am spending holidays in Lagos, Rutham House is where I spend most of my afternoons. I would just walk into their big hall that looks like a University common room, buy a Coke and relax watching the workers doing their thing. My favourite writers, besides the Guardian guys, were Ray Ekpu, Dan Agbese, Nosa Igiebor, Dare Babarinsa, Onome Osifo Whiskey, and Dele Omotunde. That era was great, and I benefited immensely, which helped me in my grasp of the Nigerian problems and how to solve them. 

Tariffs Manifesto for Dummies

Similar to the now-infamous "healthcare plan for dummies," the controversy surrounding tariffs has devolved into another exercise in political posturing. Beneath the bravado lies no genuine strategy—only a fixation on headlines and a desire to dominate the news cycle. What is conspicuously absent, once again, is a thoughtful plan to improve the economy or raise the standard of living for everyday Americans.

Tariffs are not political weapons. They are intricate economic instruments designed to regulate trade imbalances, protect strategic industries, and foster fair competition in the global marketplace. When misapplied as tools for political retaliation, they distort markets, sow uncertainty, and often end up harming the very economies they claim to defend.

For instance, what significant changes occurred in the trade, socioeconomic, or diplomatic relationship between the United States and Brazil, either a month ago or even a week ago, that could justify President Donald Trump’s recent decision to increase tariffs on Brazilian goods? The answer is nothing substantial. The only notable development is Brazil’s hosting of the 2025 BRICS Summit.

This move appears to have triggered a reaction rooted in political grandstanding rather than any clear economic rationale. It is a gesture devoid of strategic value and lacking any measurable benefit to American industry or consumers.

The earlier Wall Street, American farmers, and foreign trade-related investors realize there is no economic plan, the better for Americans. Heads of states and leaders of governments overseas are already aware of the absence of a coherent plan from Washington, D.C.

His tariff rhetoric treats complex trade dynamics as if they can be solved with a tweet, executive order, or a press conference. This shallow approach undermines global trust, disrupts supply chains, and inflates costs for consumers and producers alike. Both Americans and the international community feel the ripple effects. When has the imposition or elimination of tariffs become the subject of riddles and jokes? 

Presently, it is impossible for anyone to definitively state the current trade policy or tariff regime between the United States and countries such as China, Canada, and Mexico. The rules have undergone numerous changes, particularly within the past 100 days, rendering effective planning a significant challenge for affected nations and investors. 

This heightened level of unpredictability is fostering an environment of economic instability at home, and increasingly bears resemblance to tacit market manipulation, which appears to favor speculators and stockbrokers at the expense of long-term policy consistency and global trust.

The world, specifically Americans, cannot afford a major economy operating without a reliable and credible trade compass. As global challenges, from inflation to climate-linked disruptions, mount, international trade demands coordination and foresight. And trade policy must be grounded in data, long-term planning, and mutual benefit, as opposed to the prevailing ego or electoral theatrics.

In conclusion, whether in Washington, Lagos, Brussels, or Beijing, citizens and institutions must insist on evidence-based economic leadership. America must demand clarity. Demand competence. And above all, demand that President Donald Trump and his seemingly overtly subservient advisers—subservient, at least, for now—treat global trade as a serious lever of policy, not a stage for political drama. 

Barr. Alex Aidaghese is a lawyer and public policy analyst. He writes on governance, international affairs, and democratic accountability.

July 13, 2025

Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria. - February 20, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This essay argues that Nigeria's current federal structure is fundamentally flawed, operating more like a unitary system. It calls for urgent decentralisation of power from the central government to the federating states to foster efficiency, accountability, and equity in governance.

The author highlights that restructuring is often mischaracterised, particularly by Northern elites, as a Southern plot to fragment the nation. In reality, restructuring is a necessary reform to correct long-standing imbalances and foster national unity. Drawing parallels with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the essay shows that decentralisation can prevent collapse and encourage local development.

Historically, Nigeria’s federalism was distorted by political figures and later entrenched by successive military regimes. These distortions created a system where the centre holds disproportionate power, resulting in inefficiency, corruption, and regional dependency on federal allocations.

Citing the views of respected figures such as Wole Soyinka, Babatunde Fashola, Rotimi Amaechi, and Nasir El-Rufai, the essay reinforces the case for devolution of power. These leaders, across regions and political lines, have previously endorsed true federalism and resource control—even if they are now publicly silent.

Key Recommendations:

Decentralisation of Powers: Shift key responsibilities such as policing, resource management, and infrastructure from the federal government to the states.

State Police: Establish state-controlled police forces, with federal units focused on national security and federal assets.

Resource Control: Grant states control over onshore mineral resources within their territories, while offshore deposits remain federally managed. Encourage PPPS and FDI for exploration.

Constitutional Reform: Realign Nigeria’s governance with the principles of the 1963 Republican Constitution, allowing each region to develop according to its potential.

The essay concludes that Nigeria's leadership crisis is a structural problem. By fixing the structure through decentralisation, the country can reduce tensions, encourage healthy competition among states, and reclaim the promise of federalism envisioned by its founders.

Barr Alex Ehi Aidaghese

Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

“Why can’t we have a system of government that will create what I will call the United States of Nigeria? Let me explain. We all know that we must restructure. It is either we restructure, or we break up; you don’t have to be a prophet to know that. That is certain – restructure or we break up." The General Overseer, the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Pastor Enoch Adeboye – The Guardian, October 04, 2020.

What exactly is restructuring, and why is it perceived by the Northern traditional rulers and the majority of Northern political leaders as subversive manoeuvring by Southerners to dismantle Nigeria through the back door? Not exactly – it’s quintessentially a false narrative developed to perpetuate age-old dominance and frustrate the inevitable. Without mincing words, the fear is unfounded, and it is rooted in greed, followed by an inordinate sense of entitlement and a superiority complex. We were there before the outbreak of the Civil War and the discovery of crude oil.

Restructuring as a political concept was made popular by the former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1985 when he demanded and launched a new era of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). His groundbreaking theory not only laid the foundation for the dismantling of the monstrosity called the USSR (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), but it also saved the second most powerful military nation on earth from self-annihilation. And in 1991, the huge union devolved into 15 nation-states of equal parts. 

Today, the Russians are no longer trooping to Europe to seek political asylum, and no more Soviet Scientists and professors are flocking to the United States of America to engage in the taxi business. As you read, the nation of Ukraine is on the verge of imminent annihilation, and Putin’s Russia, with its new wealth and revival of its nuclear arsenal, is daring NATO and the rest of the world to physical combat.

Also, the six nation-states (Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) that emerged from the former Yugoslavia are happier now than ever before. No more bloodshed or threats of ethnic cleansing. 

There is no doubt, the benefits of Restructuring and True Federalism cannot be overemphasised.

DEFINING THE CONCEPTS – CONFEDERAL, FEDERAL, AND UNITARY SYSTEMS.

A Federal system of government involves the delegation of power between the central government, the federating states, and local councils. The ability of the component states to manage their resources, raise revenues, participate in the ratification of the national constitution, make laws, provide security, and regulate the general well-being of the citizens within their geographical and political boundaries are some of the fundamental elements of a Federal system of governments.

A Federal system is a midway between a unitary system (where the central governments delegate power and authority to the states and local governments) and a Confederacy system (where the component states command a large degree of autonomy and are more powerful than or as powerful as the central government).

In a Confederacy arrangement, the central government only exercises the power and authority reserved for it or delegated to it by the component states. In other words, the component states dominate the central governments and operate as semi-independent nation-states. Canada and Switzerland are some of the few countries where the Confederacy is presently in operation. The late Chief Olu Aboderin, the publisher of the Punch newspaper, was the first Nigerian to advocate for a confederation option. And the late Chief Bisi Onabajo of Ogun State took it up from where Mr. Aboderin left off.

Constitutionally, Nigeria is a Federal system, but in reality, we operate a unitary system of government. Today, the component states in the federation cannot fend for themselves and cannot survive on their own without monthly allocations from the central government. The Thirty-Six States in the federation are like local councils - a true replica of a unitary model - where the centre is more powerful than the whole. That was never the intention of our Founding Fathers.

In sum, Nigeria, without any iota of doubt, is becoming too large and too complex for the leadership at the national level to manage and govern effectively as one independent whole. The devolution of certain responsibilities of the central government to the regional governments will make for efficiency, and no doubt, curtail the massive scale of corruption, embezzlement, and prodigious squandering of our riches prevalent at the national level.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF A DISTORTED FEDERALISM (How Did We Get Here)?

The perversion of our Federal system began from the time of Sadauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Premier of the old Northern Region. His expansionist zeal, geographically speaking, was blatantly inconsistent with the concept of Federalism. Following our independence in 1960, he settled in Kaduna, rather than joining forces with his peers in Lagos to form a Government and be saddled with the responsibilities of building a new nation.

He elected to stay back in Kaduna, confident that doing so would provide him enormous opportunities to assimilate the Middle-Belt Region and fortify his (NPC) hold on the entire Northern Region. And at the same time, he consolidated his political and religious conquest of the Southern Protectorate. To him, the concept of Nigeria was simply an aberration, to wit: we are not one nation with one goal or destiny, but a confederation of states. He simply didn’t want the Northern region to be subservient to the authority in Lagos.

He resisted every attempt to create another region (Middle Belt) out of the then humongous Northern Region, fully conscious of the aftermath: Doing so would diminish his command and control of the more significant part of the country. Nevertheless, he championed the creation of the Midwestern Region, calculated to erode the territorial spread of the Action Group, with the ultimate goal of diluting Pa Awo's influence and visibility on the national stage. And it happened, judging by the outcome of the election that took place following the creation of the Midwestern Region in 1963.

As events unfolded, especially after the civil war, that clandestine manoeuvring of our federal system by the Northern Premier took a reverse turn. When his "Boys" in the Military became the dominant forces in our Armed Forces and headed the government at the national level, they dismantled the untouchable Northern region into bits and pieces in the form of new states and LGCS. And the reasons were obvious. To channel more federal funds into every nook and cranny of the region, coupled with electoral advantages and numerical strength at the National Assembly.

In other words, the more states and local government councils a region commands, the more federal funds accrue to the region monthly. In a similar vein, the more states and local government councils you have, the more Senatorial Districts and House of Reps Constituencies you command. In translation, the more members you have at the National Assemblies, with all their attendant abuses and distortions of the legislative process, the more control you exert over what becomes of Nigeria. Don’t forget the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill into law.

Except for the short period of Aguiyi Ironsi's unitary system (under the Unification Decree of 1966 or 67), Nigeria, since independence, has been at the mercy of Northern intellectuals, technocrats, and Military Officers on the issue of the system of government that we embrace as a nation-state.

Why is that distortion an issue today? It is an issue because the unintended consequences abound and they outweigh the main objectives. It changes the dynamics of our federal system of government and all its attributes. Dismantling the country into smaller units has supplanted the Federal system with a unitary model – a system of government that is resistant to competition. And it has created in the occupant of Aso Rock, a horrendous power that is blatantly inconsistent with democratic values. And that brings us to the thesis of this essay. How we overcome that anomaly is where we are going next.

 ANALYSIS

The complexities inherent in the governance of Nigeria as a single sovereign nation, as we have seen and experienced over the years, make distorted federalism inapplicable. Over the decades, it has been proven beyond doubt that the Federal Government cannot police and protect our wealth and riches. At the same time, it lacks the ability and the strategic wherewithal to manage and apply the wealth and the riches equitably for sustainable use and benefit for everyone. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for allowing the central government to remain in total and perpetual control of the wealth and riches of our great nation. Thus, making the call for decentralisation of power from the over-bloated central government to the component units or regional councils a compelling consideration.

In the words of Professor Wole Soyinka, ”Nigeria has proved too large and inefficient for the centralised identification and management of such human skills and material resources, the centre has become self-aggrandising, bloated, parasitic, and alienated. Now is the time to put into practice that ancient saying: Small is beautiful. We must return to the earlier days of creative rivalry that proclaims that vanishing past an interrupted project of promise, creativity, and productivity. Then, it may be possible for your generation to say contentedly, even while the harvest is still distant but the soil is cleanly prepared, the seeds implanted and germinating: Mission? Accomplished!” Professor Wole Soyinka: "Mission The Future" - A Speech Delivered at the 2nd South-South Economic Summit in Asaba. 03/25/2014

Suppose in the event you have any course to doubt or question the brutal optimism of our Noble Laureate on Decentralization of Power, in that case, you will no doubt be consoled and reassured by the eloquence of the former Governor of Lagos State, Raji Fashola in his Liberating and Coordinating Diversity” speech at Johns Hopkins University, SAIS, DC, the United States of America on April 2013.

According to the former Governor, “The realisation of these demands [Decentralisation of Power and True Federalism] on their own may not necessarily leapfrog us into El Dorado, but without them, the journey will be torturous. If they materialise, they liberate the possibilities that lie inherent in the diverse capacities that the Nigerian states and local governments are blessed with. In that event, the Federal Government will not be without authority or responsibility, but, in my view, it will be better able to coordinate the diversities for mutual prosperity." Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!

That was Mr. Fashola (SAN) in 2013, he diligently and constructively articulated the ills of our present federal system and why it must be rejected for True Federalism to thrive. So, why is he not making the same argument today? I have no clue. Thank God, we have his works handy and we can conveniently cite them - as we're doing now - to convince the doubting Thomas that the monstrosity at Abuja is not sustainable.

At this juncture, I would seek your indulgence to hear from the Minister of Transportation, the former Governor of River State, on the issue of resource control. He was blunt and thought-provoking beyond expression. Speaking at the retreat organized by the Senate Committee on Constitution Review, SCCR, in Asaba, the Delta State Capital, Governor Amaechi said: “We want the Federal Government to reduce the responsibilities that they have as well as the resources that they have because I am first of all a Rivers citizen before I became a Nigerian.” Unbelievable. He is not done yet.

Making one of the strongest arguments for the State Police that day, Amaechi said: “I used Rivers' resources to train 300 policemen; these policemen were trained. Indeed, the structural decay is real. There is too much power and control in the command of a sitting President of Nigeria. So, tracing the genesis and trajectory of that anomaly is not immoral. Now is the time to abrogate that humongous power at the national level (the unitary model) and spread more of it to state and local government councils in the true spirit of a federal system. That is the view of most Nigerians from north to south and from east to west, according to the Israelis. We had an understanding with the police authorities in Abuja that they would remain in Rivers for some time after their training. But the moment a certain IGP came, just because he did not like a certain Amaechi, he posted the policemen out. But if we have State police, such a thing will never happen.” True Federalism: The plots of our governors - Vanguard, August 22, 2010.

There is nothing wrong with the views that Mr. Rotimi propounded here, but why is he reluctant now to speak up? Again, I have no clue.

In the opinion of Governor El'Rufai: “As a medium-term structural measure, we must work to restore our federalism to the broad outlines embedded in the 1963 republican constitution, devolving more powers and responsibilities to the states and making the federal government less of a busybody. This would require that states like Bauchi, whose annual internally-generated revenue is N7 billion, should not run a government costing N58 billion because of monthly hand-outs from Abuja. Each state should learn to live within its means and seek to actively develop its comparative endowments. State governors will then be compelled to use their resources better and not point fingers at the federal government.” Between Terrorism and Corruption by El'Rufai - Sahara Reporters, May 10, 2012. Hate him or love him, Mallam El’Ruffai, a Northern Fulani Muslim, has not deviated one bit from his position on True Federalism.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with federalism or the federal system of government. Ours became an aberration because the concept was abused, distorted, and manipulated by every administration at the national level since the end of the civil war and the crude oil windfall. However, after a repeated perusal of the opinions of Fashola, Amaechi, and El'Rufai on the subject, I'm still short of words to explain my perplexity over President Buhari's demurrer in organising a national conference and decentralising the system accordingly. In the words of Pastor Adeboye, "We all know that we must restructure. It is either we restructure, or we break up;" you don’t have to be a prophet to know that.

MOVING FORWARD

For true federalism and decentralisation to take hold and subsist in Nigeria, resource control and the introduction of the State Police Command are fundamental. As I write, the Federal Government cannot police and protect our people and our wealth, and at the same time, cannot manage and apply the wealth for sustainable use. 

In hindsight, given the nature of our electoral history, I firmly believe and hold that we will not be able to elect selfless visionary leaders capable of bringing to fruition our dreams of a great and egalitarian society, because of the dictatorship of a very privileged few, supported by the bourgeois class they created via the spoils of office. That brings us to the highlight of this short essay: Decentralisation, without Disintegration: Unravelling and overcoming the oligarchic trends in our body politic, without jeopardising our age-old social and cultural integration.

For a start, you cannot separate the leadership crisis from the manipulation of our federal system and the resultant structural decay. They are the same. The manipulation or distortion of our federal system gave birth to the structural problems, and the structural problems, in turn, create fertile ground for nurturing the opportunists we have at the national level as well as in most of the states and local government councils. That's how "the culture of low expectations" came about - a mirror of the calibre of individuals that populate the corridors of power. Apology to Professor Ndibe. Undoing that is a task before you and me. Because maintaining the status quo is the shortest distance to anarchy, disintegration, or a bloody revolution. It is the structure that breeds leadership with questionable character. Fix the structure, and you fix the leadership crisis. And it must start with the decentralisation of Abuja.

With the rule of federalism or semi-autonomous status for the federating states as envisaged by our Founding Fathers, coupled with the decentralisation of power at the centre, the struggle for the control of Aso Rock would diminish drastically. In other words, if we decentralize the power and the resources under the control of Aso Rock; and create the right incentives for the federating states within the union to manage their people and the natural resources within their geographical boundaries, the animosity wrecking our political system, and the "do or die" approach that encapsulates pursuit of power at the federal level would ebb significantly. It is that simple.

ON STATE POLICE

With the evolution of true federalism (semi-autonomy for the federating states), State Police would be a welcome development. In that case, Mobile Police and Highway Patrol (Federal Trooper) should remain under the exclusive control of the Federal Government. Highway Patrol should be merged with the Federal Road Safety Commission to manage Federal Institutions, Foreign offices and Institutions, and Federal Highways. The Mobile Police Unit should be transformed into a SWAT TEAM for rapid response assignments nationwide. On the other hand, the regular Police should now be under the control and command of the respective State Governments. The respective states and local government councils should, as necessary, set up their own special forces for emergency deployment.  

ON RESOURCE CONTROL

Given that crude oil is the mainstay of our economy, it would be disingenuous on our part to demand or suggest that the oil-producing states should assume exclusive control and ownership of the mineral resources (oil and gas) in their respective states at this stage. That would be economically suicidal for some states, especially in some parts of the country where there is 100% reliance on the federal government for their sustenance. Presently, in most parts of the country where natural resource deposits do exist, they lack the funding and technical capacity to embark on exploratory activities at a commercial scale. It requires massive capital infusion, an efficient labour force, and planning. We cannot rule out the accommodation of Private Public Partnership (PPP) initiatives and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by the states in this category. 

Therefore, we suggest that the oil-producing states exercise control over the Onshore Mineral deposits in their respective states. The same standard should apply as well in other states in the federation regarding the ownership and control of mineral resources. On the other hand, Offshore Mineral deposits (oil and gas) within a certain limit of our Economic Exclusion Zone or Continental Shelf should be under the exclusive control and ownership of the federal government - that is part of the Nigerian territorial water, which should not belong to the coastal states.

CONCLUSION:

CONCLUSION: FIX THE STRUCTURE, FIX THE LEADERSHIP

The leadership crisis in Nigeria is rooted in the manipulation of our federal system. That system breeds weak, opportunistic leadership and low expectations. If we fix the structure, starting with decentralisation, we can restore meritocracy and reduce the toxic, sometimes bloody struggle, which defines the control of Aso Rock.

With true federalism, power and responsibility will be shared more equitably. States will be incentivised to govern efficiently and manage their resources wisely. Most importantly, we will ease ethnic tensions, reduce political violence, insecurity, and lay the foundation for a more united and prosperous Nigeria.

Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria

Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria

This essay argues that Nigeria's current federal structure is fundamentally flawed, operating more like a unitary system. It calls for urgent decentralisation of power from the central government to the federating states to foster efficiency, accountability, and equity in governance.

The author highlights that restructuring is often mischaracterised, particularly by northern elites, as a southern plot to fragment the nation. In reality, restructuring is a necessary reform to correct long-standing imbalances and foster national unity. Drawing parallels with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the essay shows that decentralisation can prevent collapse and encourage local development.

Historically, Nigeria’s federalism was distorted by political figures like Sir Ahmadu Bello and later entrenched by successive military regimes. These distortions created a system where the centre holds disproportionate power, resulting in inefficiency, corruption, and regional dependency on federal allocations.

Citing the views of respected figures such as Wole Soyinka, Babatunde Fashola, Rotimi Amaechi, and Nasir El-Rufai, the essay reinforces the case for devolution of power. These leaders, across regions and political lines, have previously endorsed true federalism and resource control—even if they are now publicly silent.

Key Recommendations:

Decentralisation of Powers: Shift key responsibilities such as policing, resource management, and infrastructure from the federal government to the states.

State Police: Establish state-controlled police forces, with federal units focused on national security and federal assets.

Resource Control: Grant states control over onshore mineral resources within their territories, while offshore deposits remain federally managed. Encourage PPPs and FDI for exploration.

Constitutional Reform: Realign Nigeria’s governance with the principles of the 1963 Republican Constitution, allowing each region to develop according to its potential.

The essay concludes that Nigeria's leadership crisis is a structural problem. By fixing the structure through decentralisation, the country can reduce tensions, encourage healthy competition among states, and reclaim the promise of federalism envisioned by its founders.

President Donald Trump vs President Cyril Ramaphosa: A Critical Analysis of South Africa's Expropriation Act of 2024

 Introduction

This essay addresses the misconceptions President Donald Trump and his advisors spread regarding South Africa's Expropriation Act of 2024. They have inaccurately claimed that the legislation unfairly strips White farmers of their land rights under President Ramaphosa's administration. However, this assertion is misleading. It is crucial to understand that the Expropriation Act does not target any specific group, such as White farmers, but instead seeks to address the historical injustices of apartheid-era land policies and promote a more equitable land distribution. By analysing the facts, legislative context, and principles of Common Law, it becomes clear that the narrative pushed by President Trump and his advisors is unfounded. The controversial provision in the Expropriation Act aligns with global standards, similar to the concepts of Police Power and Eminent Domain in Common Law countries, including the United States.

A Highlight of the Expropriation Act

As reported by TIME Magazine, the South African Expropriation Act of 2024, signed into law on January 23, 2025, addresses land ownership inequalities rooted in the pre-1994 apartheid era. The Act was the result of five years of public consultation and parliamentary debate. It outlines the process for expropriating land "for a public purpose or in the public interest," ensuring "just and equitable" compensation. While the Act generally requires compensation, it includes specific circumstances in which compensation may be zero.

The Contentious Section: Zero (Nil) Compensation

Section 12 of the South African Expropriation Bill, 2025, outlines circumstances where compensation for expropriated property may be zero, or "nil." The key points are as follows:

Compensation Amounts:

The bill mandates that compensation be "just and equitable," reflecting both the property's value and the owner's interests, similar to the Eminent Domain approach in Common Law.

In certain circumstances, the compensation amount may be zero (Nil)—comparable to the Police Power approach in Common Law.

Circumstances for Zero or Nil Compensation: The Act provides four specific grounds under which zero compensation may apply. These are not arbitrary and are limited to certain situations:

(1) Land held for speculative purposes and unused by the owner.

(2) Abandoned land where the owner has failed to maintain control.

(3) Land whose market value is equal to or less than the value of direct state investment or subsidy used for its acquisition and improvement.

(4) Land held by a state entity but not used for its core functions and acquired without compensation.

Procedures for Expropriation (Due Process Approach)

The Act’s primary goal is land reform and addressing historical injustices. It establishes clear procedures for expropriation, including:

(1) Notice requirements

(2) Opportunities for objections

(3) Dispute resolution mechanisms

This approach mirrors the due process standards in the United States and other common-law countries. Therefore, it is concerning that President Trump and his advisors would accept misinformation, likely manipulated by figures like Elon Musk, without seeking informed legal counsel.

The Common Law Approach and International Standards

Many countries have legal frameworks for government acquisition of private property for public use. Two prominent concepts are:

Eminent Domain: This power allows governments to seize private property for public use, provided "just compensation" is offered, usually based on the property’s fair market value. Due process—including notice and a hearing—is typically required. The South African Act uses "just and equitable" compensation, which aligns with the Eminent Domain concept.

Police Power: This power allows governments to regulate private property to protect public health, safety, morals, and welfare. In these cases, just compensation is not always required, as the government is regulating property use. This principle is reflected in the South African Expropriation Act under its provision for zero compensation in certain circumstances.

The concept of zero or "nil" compensation in specific limited circumstances, as outlined in the South African legislation, is consistent with the common law Police Power approach.

Conclusion

The South African Expropriation Bill of 2025 is a complex piece of legislation designed to address historical injustices and promote land reform. It is essential to base discussions about the law on facts and context rather than misinformation and speculation. The proposal to extend refugee status to White South African farmers is unfounded. These individuals, who often enjoy upper-middle-class lifestyles in their home country, do not meet the criteria for refugee status, which is intended for those facing persecution and displacement.

The people of South Africa deserve fairness, transparency, and accountability from their leaders. President Ramaphosa, like any public official, deserves a fair hearing from President Trump. Engaging in dialogue with Ramaphosa’s government would allow for a better understanding of the Expropriation Act and its objectives, ensuring that it is applied judiciously and that those affected by the law are fairly compensated.

At present, the Expropriation Act of 2024 has not yet been fully tested in the courts, and no one has suffered harm or deprivation as a result of the Act. Therefore, President Trump's decision to freeze aid to South Africa should be reconsidered. Rather than halting aid, the US government could engage in constructive dialogue with the South African government to better understand their concerns, developmental needs, and the rationale behind the Expropriation Act.

February 10, 2025