A wave of constitutional amendments making its way through Nigeria?s House of Representatives could erode what is left of Nigeria?s fragile federal structure.

While some of the 39 proposed bills promote decentralisation and governance reforms, critics say others represent a creeping erosion of state autonomy?raising the question: at what cost does decentralisation come?

Among the most controversial proposals is a bill seeking to abolish State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) and transfer the conduct of local government elections to a federally controlled body.

Proponents argue that this would enhance electoral credibility, curbing the influence of state governors who often manipulate local elections. However, opponents see it as a veiled attempt to strip states of a key function and further entrench federal dominance.

The proposed establishment of a National Local Government Electoral Commission has further deepened anxieties. For many, these moves mirror a return to centralised governance reminiscent of military rule, where local governments were mere administrative appendages of the centre rather than autonomous entities.

Federalism or federal overreach?

Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning power is constitutionally shared between the central government and the 36 states. This system allows states to exercise a degree of autonomy in governance, including conducting local government elections through their respective State Independent Electoral Commissions.

However, the proposed amendments seek to strip states of this responsibility and vest it in a federal body, a move many consider unconstitutional and dangerous.

An attorney general and former commissioner for justice of a state, who spoke anonymously, described the bills as an attempt to turn Nigeria into a de facto unitary state.

?One reads the titles of these Bills and asks whether we shouldn?t just stop pretending to be a Federation and instead pass a single amendment to dissolve State Governments and do just one election for a President who will appoint Governors, State Legislators, LG Chairpersons, and Councillors and Ministers?in addition to the 5,000-6,000 Chairmen and members of boards, commissions, and agencies,? he said.

This criticism highlights the irony of simultaneously pushing for state police and resources control, an initiative meant to empower states, while at the same time stripping states of their power to conduct elections at the local government level.

Critics of the bills questioned why states deemed capable of managing security through their police forces, are not trusted to conduct their own elections.

Supporters of these amendments argue that they are necessary to ensure credible, transparent, and fair local government elections, as SIECs have historically been accused of being tools of state governors who manipulate the electoral process. It is true that many local government elections across the country have been riddled with irregularities, with ruling parties in various states often winning landslide victories under questionable circumstances.

However, critics argued that the solution to this problem is not federal takeover, but rather strengthening electoral institutions at the state level. State autonomy is a fundamental pillar of federalism, and transferring power to a central body controlled from Abuja raises concerns about the concentration of political influence. If the problem is political interference by state governors, why should the federal government, which itself has a political stake, be trusted with overseeing local government elections?

Chinedu Obi, Director-General of the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), believed that the solution is not to centralise control but to reform existing institutions.

?But centralising it would work against the principle of federalism. Don?t create a different federal body,? Obi stated.

He called on the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act to remove the president?s power to appoint electoral umpires. Instead, he proposed a multi-sectoral approach involving civil society organisations, with appointments publicly announced in national dailies to ensure transparency.

From federalist advocate to centralist president?

Much of the backlash against these amendments has centred on President Bola Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State who, during his tenure, fiercely opposed federal overreach. As a leading figure in the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Tinubu was vocal in his opposition to military dictatorship and fought for democratic principles, including the protection of state autonomy.

Yet, critics argue that his administration is now overseeing one of the most aggressive attempts at federal consolidation in recent history.

The controversial declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, coupled with the federal legislature?s dramatic approval of the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials, has raised alarm bells about his commitment to democratic norms.

Tinubu?s past statements stand in contrast to his present actions. When former President Olusegun Obasanjo orchestrated the removal of Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye in 2004, Tinubu condemned the move, calling it a ?bad precedent.?

Yet, under his watch, federal lawmakers swiftly approved Fubara?s controversial suspension, reinforcing concerns that the National Assembly, who should check executive excesses, is now being seen as a rubber stamp for federal overreach.

The FCT question: A state in disguise?

Another contentious aspect of the amendment bills is the proposal to establish a House of Assembly for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Critics argued that this move further complicated the federal balance, as the FCT would have a civil service and a legislature, making it functionally similar to a state.

The attorney general who spoke anonymously questioned this inconsistency: ?How can the FCT have its own civil service as Wike has contrived, and its own legislature and still be described as ?federal?? Won?t the next thing we hear be strident calls for an ?Abuja State???

The role of Nyesom Wike, the current FCT minister, has also been a source of controversy. Wike, a former governor of Rivers State and a key figure in the state?s political crisis, has been accused of exercising excessive control over the FCT, making it function more like a state under federal administration. If the FCT gains a legislature and other structures akin to a state government, it raises questions about whether it should be granted full statehood, a move that could significantly alter Nigeria?s federal balance.

Atulegwu Amamgbo, an Abuja-based lawyer, warned that granting the FCT a legislature could strip it of its special status as Nigeria?s capital.

?The FCT was carved out and reserved for the Federal Government. Having its own legislature means the Federal Government will lose control over the FCT, as lawmakers there will now make laws of their own,? he explained.

He further argued that under the current system, the FCT minister does not have the power to approve laws. If the proposed bill passes, that would change, effectively giving the minister powers similar to those of a state governor.

?This is not right,? Amamgbo asserted, emphasising the need to maintain the constitutional arrangement that keeps the FCT under federal jurisdiction.

The ongoing debate over these constitutional amendments goes beyond political maneuvering, it strikes at the heart of Nigeria?s federalism. If passed, these changes could redefine the relationship between the federal and state governments, raising critical questions about the balance of power, democratic governance, and the true essence of federalism in Nigeria. (BusinessDay)

Update news