Resource Control: The Economic Foundation of a New Nigeria
By Odesola JF., PhD
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the proposal is its approach to revenue allocation.
The suggested formula would allow states to retain 50 per cent of the revenue they generate, while allocating 20 per cent to the Federation Account, 15 per cent to the geopolitical zones and 15 per cent to a National Trust Fund.
The central idea is that states should have stronger incentives to develop their economies, generate revenue and become less dependent on federal allocations.
This is an important conversation because a federation cannot be productive when its component units have insufficient incentives or opportunities to develop their own economic capacities.
For too long, the monthly distribution of revenue from the Federation Account has dominated conversations about the financial health of many state governments. While federal transfers are necessary for national solidarity and the provision of essential services, excessive dependence on them can weaken the incentive to build sustainable local economies.
A state blessed with fertile land should be asking how to become a major agricultural producer. A state with industrial potential should be attracting manufacturers and supporting small businesses. A state with mineral resources should be developing transparent, environmentally responsible extraction and processing industries. States with strong tourism potential should be investing in infrastructure, hospitality and cultural enterprises.
Our states should be competing constructively to create jobs, attract investment, expand production and improve the living standards of their people.
However, resource control must be approached with care. Allowing states to retain a greater share of locally generated revenue could encourage productivity, but it could also widen existing inequalities if wealthier states pull further ahead while poorer states struggle to finance education, healthcare and infrastructure.
Nigeria must therefore strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and national solidarity.
The debate must also clarify what constitutes revenue generated by a state, how corporate taxes and other shared revenues would be treated, how the proposed percentages would be calculated, and whether the different tiers would have clearly defined taxing powers.
The proposed percentages should not be treated as a complete fiscal framework until these details have been worked out. Nor should anyone assume that the existing revenue-allocation system can simply be replaced by announcing a new formula.
A workable system must provide sufficient resources for national defence, foreign affairs, national infrastructure, debt obligations, equalisation support and other responsibilities that benefit the entire federation.
The National Trust Fund also requires careful definition. What would it finance? Who would manage it? How would its projects be selected? What safeguards would prevent it from becoming another channel for political patronage?
A good idea becomes a national solution only when its financial arrangements are transparent, realistic and sustainable.
Security and Regional Policing: Protecting Citizens Without Creating New Dangers
Security is another compelling reason to examine the structure of our federation.
Communities across Nigeria continue to demand better protection against terrorism, kidnapping, banditry, communal violence and other criminal activities. Where security threats cross state boundaries, coordination between neighbouring states is essential.
The proposal for regional police forces operating alongside the Nigerian Police Force deserves serious examination. A regional arrangement could improve intelligence-sharing, coordinate operations across state borders and allow policing strategies to respond more closely to local conditions.
But there is a danger we must not ignore.
If regional police forces are placed under the unchecked control of governors, they could become instruments of political intimidation, especially during elections or periods of political tension. A structure intended to protect citizens must never become a weapon against opposition parties, journalists, traditional institutions or ordinary people who disagree with those in power.
Any decentralised policing system must therefore have clear constitutional safeguards, professional standards, independent complaints mechanisms, judicial oversight and effective accountability. There must also be clear rules governing cooperation between regional and federal police forces.
The purpose of policing is to protect the public, enforce the law and preserve peace—not to protect the political fortunes of officeholders.
The same principle applies to electricity, healthcare and transportation. Responsibilities can be decentralised, but standards, transparency and accountability must be strengthened.
Will Four Tiers of Government Deliver More or Cost More?
The proposed structure would add a zonal tier to the existing federal, state and local government arrangement.
Supporters believe this could improve coordination and regional development. Critics may reasonably worry that it would introduce another layer of bureaucracy into a country already burdened by administrative costs.
Both concerns deserve attention.
Before creating zonal governments, Nigeria should undertake a detailed institutional assessment. Which functions should remain exclusively federal? Which should belong to the states? Which are better delivered by local governments? And which genuinely require regional coordination?
If the same functions are performed at all four levels, the result will be duplication, delays and waste. If responsibilities are clearly allocated and institutions are properly coordinated, however, a regional tier could deliver benefits that individual states might struggle to achieve alone.
The proposal for rotating the chairmanship among governors could help prevent one state from permanently dominating a zone. Nevertheless, rotation alone cannot guarantee fairness or effective administration. Decisions must be based on agreed rules, and the zonal chief executive must operate within a clear legal framework.
We must also protect the autonomy of local governments. Bringing government closer to the people is meaningless if decisions are simply transferred from Abuja to another distant administrative centre.
The test is not how many tiers of government Nigeria possesses. The test is whether citizens receive better services, enjoy greater security and have more opportunities to improve their lives.
Political Leadership Must Rise Above Self-Interest
Restructuring will inevitably affect political power. It will influence revenue, appointments, administrative responsibilities and the relationships between the federal government, states and local communities.
That is precisely why it requires courageous leadership.
No meaningful reform can succeed if political actors approach it exclusively from the standpoint of how much power they might gain or lose. The central question must be what serves the long-term interests of Nigeria.
If the present administration genuinely develops and implements a fair, transparent and economically sustainable restructuring programme, it deserves recognition for the reforms that demonstrably benefit the country. Political differences should never prevent Nigerians from acknowledging good public policy.
Equally, no administration should receive automatic praise merely because an attractive proposal is circulating under its name or because supporters have described it as a historic achievement.
We must distinguish proposals from policies, policies from legislation, and legislation from successful implementation.
Leadership is not measured by announcements alone. It is measured by the courage to make difficult decisions, the integrity to consult those affected, the competence to implement reforms and the humility to correct mistakes.
Our national future should not be held hostage by the personal ambitions of politicians or by the fear that reform might disrupt established interests.
The Way Forward: From Social Media to Constitutional Action
Nigeria needs more than another round of political promises. We need a disciplined national process that examines the country’s constitutional and economic arrangements and determines what must change.
The document circulating online should be the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one.
First, the proposal should be made available in an authoritative, complete and verifiable form. Nigerians must know whether it is a private reform proposal, a draft submitted for consideration or a bill formally introduced in the National Assembly.
Second, the National Assembly and relevant constitutional reform bodies should facilitate an informed public debate on federalism, state viability, revenue allocation, policing, regional cooperation and the future of local government.
Third, the views of state governments, traditional rulers, professional associations, civil society, labour organisations, businesses, young people, women and affected communities must be heard. Those who will live with the consequences of new state boundaries and institutions must not be treated as spectators.
Fourth, independent experts should examine the fiscal implications. We need credible projections of the cost of creating additional states, the potential savings from regional cooperation, the effect of resource control on poorer states and the financial viability of the proposed zonal authorities.
Fifth, every constitutional change must follow the procedures prescribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Establishing a new tier of government, changing state boundaries and altering the distribution of public revenue cannot be accomplished by a viral announcement or an executive declaration alone. Any reform must satisfy the applicable legislative and constitutional amendment requirements, including the necessary approvals by state legislatures where required.
Finally, implementation should be transparent, phased where appropriate and measured against clear public targets. Nigerians should be able to determine whether reforms are reducing poverty, improving security, creating jobs, strengthening public services and increasing accountability.
We must not replace one unworkable system with another merely because the new arrangement sounds attractive.
The Future Belongs to a Nigeria That Is Willing to Think Again
My concern is not simply whether Nigeria will have 36 states or 42. It is whether the Nigerian child will have access to quality education, whether a young graduate will find meaningful employment, whether a farmer will be able to transport produce to the market, whether families will receive affordable healthcare and whether citizens can sleep without fear of violence.
Those are the outcomes by which every political arrangement must ultimately be judged.
Our country has the resources, talent and population to become a major force for economic progress in Africa and the world. What we must now demonstrate is the collective wisdom to organise those resources effectively and the political maturity to build institutions that serve the common good.
We cannot continue to force old solutions upon new problems. We cannot keep defending every existing arrangement simply because changing it is difficult. And we cannot allow the fear of political disagreement to prevent us from discussing the reforms that may secure our children’s future.
At the same time, radical thinking must not mean reckless experimentation. Genuine restructuring requires evidence, consultation, constitutional legitimacy and a clear understanding of both the opportunities and the risks.
We owe ourselves that honesty.
We owe the younger generation a country that works better than the one we inherited. We owe the communities that feel marginalised a fair hearing. We owe the states struggling to develop their economies a system that rewards enterprise while preserving national solidarity. And we owe future generations institutions that are sustainable, accountable and worthy of their trust.
The labour of our heroes past must not be in vain. Their sacrifices should inspire us not merely to preserve the country they helped build, but to strengthen it through justice, responsible leadership and institutional renewal.
Nigeria must move forward. We must think deeper. We must have the courage to reform what is not working and the wisdom to protect what holds us together.
The question before us is no longer whether restructuring is comfortable for those who hold power. The question is whether our present arrangements are delivering the security, prosperity, fairness and dignity that Nigerians deserve.
If they are not, then we must be prepared to change them.
Let this debate rise above rumours, political propaganda, ethnic suspicion and partisan loyalty. Let us examine the proposals, challenge their weaknesses, improve their strengths and build a workable national consensus.
The Nigeria of tomorrow cannot be built with yesterday’s thinking alone.
We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. The time for radical thinking, responsible action and a new national beginning is now.
The future of Nigeria must be greater than the interests of any individual, political party, region or generation. It must belong to all Nigerians.
