This study is a way of lending a voice to the ongoing discourse on the issue of reinventing true federalism in Nigeria and contributing to the contested national issue. It argues that Nigeria cannot be a strong and united federation unless and until the constituent parts (states) are sufficiently empowered by enabling practices that conform to the principles of federalism. The essence of true federalism is to allow each state or region in a federation a significant measure of autonomy to manage its affairs. The federalist debate in Nigeria centers essentially on the need to understand the basis of the contract of true federalism. This debate is longstanding, passionate and inconclusive. Despite the contrived arrangement as articulated by the ruling class, the systematic dysfunction has resulted in a series of violent, dramatic and traumatic inter-ethno regional confrontation, vitiating the essence of the debate. It concludes that all traces of unitary system of government should be removed from Nigeria’s form of federalism and the states should be allowed certain degree of freedom and autonomy that is consistent with federalism.

Very few national issues in the past five decades have provoked more profound debate and lengthy discussions than the practice of federalism in Nigeria. Indeed, this concept formed the focal point, among other things, at the well-attended Constitutional Conference in 1953 at Lancaster House, London and the 1954 Lagos Conference which led to the enactment of the 1954 Littleton Constitution. The 1960 Independence and the 1963 Republican Constitutions, respectively, enshrined some fundamental principles of federalism in view of the level of regionalism and derivation percentage (fiscal federalism) that the regions enjoyed. In the course of the nation’s political evolution, these constitutions were either suspended, modified or repealed by the ruling military leadership, and the country tilted to a unitary system with a very strong center. With the return of democratic governance and the unsolved developmental problems that Nigeria has experienced, there has been a spontaneous agitation for the institutionalization of federalism and, particularly, the practice of true federalism. This is in view of the underlying philosophy of federalism as a system of government where the component units of a political organization participate in sharing powers and functions in a cooperative manner.

In the federal system of government, certain forms of crises are frequent; these include political and constitutional crises that bother about the exact division of power and responsibility between the federal and state governments. Another common form of conflict is the one between states and federal interests, or between the interests and aspirations of different ethnic groups in the country. In some federations, the entire jurisdiction is relatively homogeneous and each constituent state resembles a miniature version of the whole. This is known as Congruent Federalism. On the other hand, incongruent federalism exists where there are distinct ethnic groups like Nigeria. In all the crises inherent in a federal system of government, ethnic violence is a serious problem because it hinders sustainable national development. It is also divisive and hinders unanimity of purpose and goal attainment. The controversy over the type of federalism the Nigerian state is operating has been vociferous. The discourses are predicated on a number of issues that some scholars and political activists refer to as the national question of what is ‘true federalism’? The country’s federalism has been distorted since its independence in 1960, first by the political class and second by the military.

International Relations Journal, Reinventing, Federalism, Constitutional Conference, Olatokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu, Reinventing True Federalism, State Structure.