…as Section 21 debate sparks reform calls

A prominent constitutional scholar and political thinker, Olusegun R. Babalola, has warned that Nigeria is dangerously underutilising what he describes as one of its most powerful but neglected constitutional provisions—Section 21 of the 1999 Constitution.
The warning comes amid a growing national debate over constitutional reform and the role of culture in governance, as discussions around Chapter II of the Constitution regain political and intellectual traction.

Section 21 of the Constitution obliges the State to promote Nigerian cultures that enhance human dignity and support national development, while also encouraging scientific and technological advancement rooted in cultural values.
But Babalola warns that the provision has been reduced to what he calls a “sleeping clause”—acknowledged in theory but ignored in governance practice.
According to him, Nigeria’s interpretation of culture has been distorted into ceremonies, festivals, artefacts, and symbolic displays, stripping it of its institutional and developmental force.

At the core of his argument is a more explosive claim: Nigeria has systematically separated its cultural identity from its governance architecture.
He argues that traditional institutions such as emirates, obaship systems, and councils of elders remain influential at community level but are constitutionally sidelined, creating a deep disconnect between moral authority and state power.
“The result,” he warns, “is a system that is modern in appearance but culturally disconnected in function.”

The debate has gained renewed momentum following repeated calls by the Social Democratic Party presidential candidate, Adewole Adebayo, who has made the activation of Chapter II of the Constitution a central pillar of his political messaging.
His position—that Nigeria’s development crisis is rooted not in policy scarcity but in constitutional neglect—has brought renewed attention to long-ignored directive principles of state policy.
Babalola situates Nigeria’s challenge within a global shift toward what he describes as “civilisational states”—countries that merge modern governance systems with deep-rooted cultural and historical identity.

He points to China’s blending of Confucian traditions with modern state planning, India’s constitutional empowerment of local governance structures, and the developmental models of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
In these countries, he argues, culture is not symbolic—it is structural and operational.
“Symbolism Trap” Weakening Nigeria
By contrast, he warns that Nigeria has fallen into what he calls a “symbolism trap,” where culture is celebrated publicly but excluded from governance and economic design.

He cites landmark cultural moments such as FESTAC 77 as examples of strong symbolic expression that failed to translate into institutional reform or developmental policy integration.
Babalola insists that Section 21 should not be discarded but reactivated through bold reinterpretation.
He calls for the integration of indigenous governance principles—consensus-building, communal accountability, and restorative justice—into local government structures and administrative systems.

In his view, such reforms would transform culture from a passive identity marker into a functioning development instrument.
Bigger Question for Nigeria’s Future
Ultimately, the debate raises a fundamental constitutional question: is Nigeria’s development challenge rooted in lack of ideas, or in the failure to activate ideas already contained in its Constitution?
As constitutional reform discussions deepen, Section 21 is emerging not just as a legal provision, but as a potential battleground over Nigeria’s future—between symbolic identity and structural transformation.