By Lolu Ojo

Every enduring civilisation eventually discovers one fundamental truth about governance: power works best when it is exercised closest to the people. Communities understand their own realities better than distant bureaucracies. They know their peculiar challenges, appreciate their comparative advantages and respond more quickly to emerging problems. Consequently, government becomes more responsive, more innovative and more accountable when decisions are taken near the citizens whose lives they affect.

The opposite is equally true. The farther authority is removed from the people, the slower government becomes. Bureaucracy expands. Decisions take longer. Innovation gives way to procedure. Accountability becomes diffused. Citizens gradually lose confidence in institutions that appear distant from their everyday realities. This is not merely a political observation. It is one of the enduring lessons of public administration.

The science of governance has long recognised what constitutional scholars describe as the principle of subsidiarity: no higher level of government should perform responsibilities that can be effectively discharged by a lower one. National governments should concern themselves with national priorities, while matters that are inherently local should be entrusted to institutions closest to the communities they serve.

It is a simple principle. Yet it explains why some federations consistently outperform others. Countries as diverse as Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, India and the United States differ in culture, history and political evolution, but they share one important characteristic. They distribute public authority in ways that allow local institutions to solve local problems while preserving a strong national government to address issues of common interest. Their experience demonstrates that decentralisation is not the enemy of national unity; wisely designed, it is one of its strongest foundations.

Nigeria now finds itself at a point where this lesson deserves renewed attention. For decades, national conversations have centred on insecurity, unemployment, poor infrastructure, weak public services, declining productivity, constitutional reform and economic competitiveness. These are often treated as separate challenges requiring separate solutions. Yet beneath many of them lies a common structural question that deserves greater consideration.

Have we concentrated too much responsibility too far from the people?
A federation of well over two hundred million citizens, spread across diverse cultures, ecological zones and economic realities, cannot reasonably expect one central authority to possess sufficient knowledge, flexibility and speed to respond effectively to every local challenge. Governance, like medicine, succeeds when diagnosis precedes prescription.

Nigeria’s constitutional evolution explains how we arrived here. The regional structure of the First Republic allowed substantial authority over education, agriculture, economic planning and internal development. The Western Region pioneered free primary education and television broadcasting. The Northern Region transformed agricultural production through groundnut and cotton cultivation. The Eastern Region expanded industrial and commercial enterprise around palm produce. Regional competition stimulated innovation, while citizens knew clearly which level of government deserved commendation, or criticism.

Military intervention fundamentally altered that trajectory.

In pursuit of national cohesion during periods of instability, powers that once resided within the regions steadily migrated to the centre. Many of those decisions were understandable within the historical circumstances of the time. Yet constitutional arrangements should evolve with changing realities.

Today’s Nigeria is larger, more urban, more educated, more economically complex and far more interconnected than the Nigeria that inherited those structures. The institutions of governance must evolve accordingly.

Across several sectors, the consequences of excessive centralisation have become increasingly evident. Electricity development often struggles because local councils have historically possessed limited authority to pursue integrated solutions tailored to their economic realities. Agricultural priorities differ significantly between Kebbi, Cross River, Ekiti and Borno, yet policy frequently follows nationally uniform templates.

Healthcare delivery is most effective when it reflects local disease patterns and demographic needs. Urban transportation challenges in Lagos differ fundamentally from those in Jos or Yenagoa. Environmental management requires different responses in the Niger Delta, the Sahel and the rainforest belt. The underlying issue is not simply administrative efficiency. It is institutional proximity.

Distance is the hidden tax on governance.
The farther decisions travel, the slower they become. The slower they become, the more expensive implementation becomes. The more expensive implementation becomes, the weaker accountability grows. The economic implications are equally significant.

Investment follows predictability. Innovation flourishes where institutions possess the authority to respond quickly to emerging opportunities. Regions that can plan, execute and compete responsibly tend to attract greater enterprise and create stronger incentives for productivity. Decentralisation is therefore not merely a constitutional aspiration. It is an economic strategy.

The ongoing national conversation on State Police illustrates this broader principle. Supporters rightly argue that locally recruited officers understand their communities better, appreciate local languages and terrain, respond more rapidly to emergencies and build stronger relationships with citizens. Critics, equally rightly, caution against political interference, uneven funding, abuse of authority and local bias. These concerns deserve careful attention, not dismissal.

Yet the existence of risks is not an argument against decentralisation itself. Every governance arrangement carries risks. Nigeria’s highly centralised policing structure has not eliminated abuse, corruption or insecurity. The more productive question is how constitutional safeguards, independent oversight, professional recruitment, transparent funding and judicial accountability can minimise abuse while preserving the considerable benefits of locally accountable security institutions. Indeed, policing should not dominate the larger conversation. The more important question is this: At what level should each public responsibility be exercised to achieve maximum efficiency, accountability and responsiveness?

Once that question is asked, the conversation extends naturally beyond policing. Education should increasingly reflect regional economic priorities while maintaining national standards. Agricultural development should leverage ecological diversity rather than impose administrative uniformity. Healthcare systems should possess greater flexibility to address local realities. Infrastructure planning should empower states and local communities to solve local challenges while the Federal Government concentrates on those responsibilities that genuinely require national coordination.

Effective federalism is not about weakening the centre. It is about enabling every level of government to perform the functions for which it is best suited.
Perhaps the greatest dividend of decentralisation is accountability. One of the unintended consequences of excessive concentration of power is the diffusion of responsibility. Citizens blame Abuja. Governors blame the Federal Government. Local governments blame the states. Responsibility circulates endlessly while solutions remain elusive.

A more balanced federation aligns authority with responsibility. When citizens know precisely who is responsible for education, healthcare, transportation, security or infrastructure within their communities, democratic accountability becomes stronger because political responsibility becomes unmistakably clear.

This is not an argument for fragmentation. It is an argument for functionality.

Strong federations are not held together by administrative uniformity. They are sustained by mutual confidence, constitutional clarity and shared national purpose. Unity flourishes when citizens believe that government understands their circumstances and possesses the authority to respond to them effectively.

Nigeria’s greatest challenge, therefore, may not simply be insecurity, unemployment or inadequate infrastructure. It may be the widening distance between public authority and the people whose welfare that authority exists to promote.

Our national conversation should move beyond asking whether one institution or another should be decentralised. The larger question is whether the architecture of governance itself still reflects the realities of twenty-first-century Nigeria.

History offers a consistent answer.
Governments become stronger when they trust their people. Federations become more resilient when responsibility is intelligently distributed. Nations become more prosperous when decisions are made where knowledge is deepest, action is fastest and accountability is clearest.

The future of Nigeria will not be secured by concentrating more authority at the centre. Neither will it be secured by merely redistributing power for its own sake. It will be secured by building institutions that place responsibility where competence is greatest and accountability is most immediate.

That is the enduring promise of federalism.
That is the pathway to more responsive governance.
And that is why the next chapter of Nigeria’s constitutional journey should begin with one simple but transformative principle:

Bring Power Closer to the People.

• Dr. Lolu Ojo BPharm, MBA, PharmD, FPCPharm, FPSN, FNAPharm is a
Consultant Pharmacist