ABUJA, NIGERIA — 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, and 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. Countries as diverse as Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, India, and the United States all 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 .
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, and economic competitiveness . These are often treated as separate challenges requiring separate solutions. Yet beneath many of them lies a common structural question: a federation of well over 200 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 the nation arrived at this point. 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, and 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 . 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 governments 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. 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. Yet the existence of risks is not an argument against decentralisation itself . 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, and transparent funding can minimise abuse while preserving the considerable benefits of locally accountable institutions .
The landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 2024, which granted full financial autonomy to the 774 local government areas, represents one of the most significant governance reforms in Nigeria’s democratic history . President Bola Tinubu’s administration initiated the suit, which resulted in the Court holding that funds allocated to local governments should be paid directly to them; state governments should not retain or control local government allocations; democratically elected local government councils must be respected; caretaker arrangements cannot replace constitutionally recognised elected councils; and local governments are entitled to exercise their constitutional functions as a distinct tier of government .
The 2024 Supreme Court ruling functions as a massive decentralised fiscal stimulus. Instead of concentrating liquidity in 36 state capitals and Abuja, the Federation Account now injects liquidity directly into 774 distinct economic units . If an average local government receives N300 million monthly, that is N300 million potentially circulating in a rural economy, paying local contractors, buying local materials, and employing local labour. You cannot grow a $1 trillion economy from Abuja alone. The multiplier effect of spending N1 billion in a rural local government on boreholes and road grading is arguably higher than spending the same amount in Abuja on conferences, because rural spending directly attacks the supply-side constraints of food production .
Former Governor of Ondo State, Dr Olusegun Mimiko, has called for the urgent adoption of what he describes as the “Jethro Principle” as a structural solution to Nigeria’s governance challenges . Drawing from Exodus 18, Mimiko noted that Moses suffered burnout and administrative gridlock when he attempted to govern millions from the centre alone, until his father-in-law, Jethro, advised him to delegate authority to capable leaders over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens . “The Jethro Principle teaches us that effective governance must be built on merit, capacity, and capability,” Mimiko stated. “Power and responsibility must be pushed closer to the people, so local issues can be handled locally, while only national matters rise to the centre. That is the template for true federalism” .
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.
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 .
