By Adebayo Mubarak Adewumi

 

Abstract

Federalism in Nigeria is a system of governmental organization where independent states form a common government while retaining their autonomy. It was created to unite the diverse ethnicities and nationalities that were amalgamated into a unitary colony and protectorates of the British Empire. The British promoted statehood and nation-destroying, resulting in the divide-and-rule system. The 1954 Littleton Constitution institutionalized political hegemony and demographic preeminence of the North over the two southern regions, leading to tensions and quakes that culminated in the demise of the first republic and the eventual military takeover of government. The corrosive impact of military dictatorship on the seemingly federal Nigeria is discussed, including the excessive abuse of power, personalization, and concentration of machinery of government in the military head of state, the total collapse of federal structure and governance, and the direct action of the Army in destabilizing local government councils.

The evolution of federalism in Nigeria has been shaped by constitutional provisions and political events, but also by judicial decisions. The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the provisions of the federal constitution and resolving disputes between the federal government and the constituent states but has also faced criticism for its perceived lack of independence and impartiality. One notable example of this is the landmark case of A.G. Federation v. Abia State (2004), in which the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that the federal government had no authority to withhold funds allocated to the states under the constitution. Another example is the case of Lagos v. Federation (2004), which upheld the power of state governments to regulate intra-state commerce and impose taxes on hotels and restaurants within their jurisdiction.

Overall, judicial decisions have played a key role in shaping the evolution of Nigerian federalism, and will likely continue to do so in the future. The ability of the judiciary to remain independent and impartial will be crucial in ensuring the continued success of Nigeria’s federal system of government.

Introduction
Federalism according to the proponents of the theory is the coming together of different federating units to become one central unit indivisible by external force nor weakened by internal conflicts.

For a state to be regarded as a federation, there must be in existence a written constitution prescribing and describing powers between the levels of government. It is also agreed upon that there must be an independent judiciary who will settle issues that may arise between the levels of government. There must be financial autonomy between the levels of government and the federating units that came together to become one. Each must be financially autonomous. Lastly, each level of government must exist on a coordinated basis i.e independent existence without being subordinate to any other level of government.

Meaning, Origin, and Concept of Federalism
Federalism is a system of governmental organization whereby two or more independent states agree to form a common government while retaining their distinctive autonomy. It is a concept that attempts to give meaning to a form of government that is decentralized between the central authority and the component units that come together out of one or more significant reasons, and to which there is a constitutional stipulation of the nature and period of exercising the specific power to avoid clashes and a provision for a means of compromise when clashes are inevitable. Federalism originated from a Latin expression pronounced “faedus” and is traceable to the ancient twelve tribes of Israel and the league of Greek City States. It has faced serious crises of conceptualization due to dramatic changes in the institutions to which it refers, and has come to connote domination by a gigantic impersonal concentration of force.

Most scholars of federalism have accepted Wheare’s conceptualization of the subject matter as a point of convergence. Wheare’s definition of the federal concept emphasized an explicit division of powers and functions between a central government and some decentralized units of government in such a manner that no government can encroach on the powers and functions of the other. Federalism is a reflection of the inherent diversities in a society and is a system fashioned to hold different nations together in a state while allowing each of them a degree of autonomy in certain areas. There are two major theoretical conceptions of federalism: one is a uniting force or bond which results in the joining of different nationalities into a single statehood through the sharing of governmental administrative offices, while the other is a way of joining different nations with visible dissimilarities and granting them ample room to exist independent of the rest and exercising uninterrupted autonomy within their respective territorial jurisdiction. Nigerian federalism envisages the development of a limited central government.

Federalism is a system of government that seeks to maintain unity in spite of the cleavages among nations. It is based on the recognition of the need for national unity and a centralized system of governance, while acknowledging the differences, diversities, and unique interests of the various federating units. It is a pragmatic distribution of power and resources by means of a Legal Document, fiscal autonomy, division of powers, a supreme constitution, and rule of law, democracy, and the absence of marked inequality in population between regions. This work examines the basic features of federalism vis-à-vis the provisions of the federal constitution of Nigeria and the challenges to her practice of federalism. It also considers the historical origin of federalism in Nigeria.
Evolution of Federalism in Nigeria: Colonial Heritage
Nigerian federalism was created and nurtured under the influence of dictatorship and autocratic government, resulting in its stunted and regressive nature. It was introduced to forcibly unite the diverse ethnicities and nationalities that were previously arbitrarily amalgamated into a unitary colony and protectorates of the British Empire. It is susceptible to the divisive influence of centripetal forces, which draw unhealthy loyalty to the components parts rather than loyalty to the national compact. Devolutionary federations like Nigeria lack the integrative identities and values of civic reciprocity and mutual respect associated with a voluntary compact or bargain to join a federal union, leading to an involuntary movement toward centralization. The British colonial legacy in Nigeria is said to be that of promotion of statehood and nation-destroying, as the divide-and-rule system was used to inflame division, suspicion, chaos, and recrimination among the diverse ethnic nationalities.

The 1954 Littleton Constitution constitutionalized regionalism by establishing for Nigeria a three-region federation, which institutionalized the political hegemony and demographic preeminence of the North over the two southern regions combined with total disregard for the minorities situated in this region. Despite serious and furious protests from these minorities, the British colonial government resisted all calls for further subdivision of the country so as to cater to the minority ethnic groups. The British government left the political scene and relinquished control of the federation, leading to tensions and quakes that culminated in the demise of the first republic and the eventual military takeover of government. The intervention of the Nigerian military escalated inter-regional tensions into large-scale inter-ethnic violence and civil war, resulting in the genocidal civil war of 1966 to 1979. The corrosive and ruinous impact of military dictatorship on the seemingly federal Nigeria was markedly between the military coups that ended the Second Republic in 1983 to the end of Late General Abacha’s dictatorial regime.

Military rule in Nigeria was characterized by excessive abuse of power, personalization, and concentration of machinery of government in the military head of state, increasing domination and repression of ethnic minorities and promotion of northern hegemony, total and flagrant disregard of re-democratization movements, and the manipulative and repulsive concentration of government at the center with no regard to federal ideal, principles, and practices. This led to a total collapse of federal structure and governance, with the complete subordination of constituent state governments to the unified military command system, the direct action of the Army in destabilizing local government councils, the continued overwhelming dependence of states and localities on central funding, the manipulation of statutory intergovernmental revenue-sharing arrangements, the complete castration of the autonomy of the judiciary, and the proliferation of new units of centrally-funded states and local governments as part of a strategy to consolidate the centre’s domination and promote the continuity and legitimacy of military rule. Federalism holds the key to a stable and stronger Nigeria, but has not been practiced in Nigeria, leading to its onerous challenges. To address this, it is important to consider the federal features of Nigeria’s Constitution and the flaws that have hindered its ability to practice true federalism.

JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF FEDERALISM
The purpose of analyzing the concept of federalism through the lens of the Judiciary is to show the applicability of law and theories to everyday life. Unarguably, some schools of jurisprudence particularly the realist school believe that law in all its entirety is the wordings and decision of the court, “law is what the court says it is”. This succinct position is so germane in the course of our discussion and as such, will be a disservice if the same is precluded from the discourse.

According to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of OLAFISOYE V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2004) LPELR-SC.316/2001 (Pp 43 – 44, Paras. F – A), the apex Court per Tobi J.S.C defines what federalism entails as thus
“Constitutions are named as federal, unitary and confederal, to maintain the major ones. A federal government will mean that the constitution writers say it means. And this can be procured within the four walls of the Constitution only. Therefore, a general definition of federalism or federal government may not be the answer to the peculiar provisions of a nation’s constitution which is the fons et origo of its legal system”.

Even though the 1999 Constitution as Amended did not give an explicit definition of what federalism means but it makes a constitutional provision for Nigeria’s Federalism particularly Sections 2 Subsection (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereinafter refers to as 1999 Constitution) which provides as thus:
2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.

Also, from deducing the intention of the constitution drafters and the provisions of the said constitution that talk or border on federalism particularly the combined reading of Section 318 and Section 14, we can say Nigeria’s federalism is a system of government or a state that is base on the principles of democracy and social justice that seeks to integrate and reflect the Federal Character of Nigeria by promoting national unity, and also to command national loyalty to ensure that there is no predominance of any units, state or ethnic group over another.

Gearing ourselves towards the workings of federalism in Nigeria, we must look at all the above recommendations of academia towards understanding the fundamental of federalism viz-a-viz its expectation of workability and its actual workings or practices in Nigeria.

Going further, the Supreme Court in finding meaning and purport of Federalism, held in the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL FEDERATION V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2013) LPELR-SC.340/2010 (P. 93, paras. A-G) where the Apex Court per Mukhtar J.S.C held that:
“The purport of Federalism is succinctly put by the former constitutional lawyer and scholar Professor Ben Nwabueze in his book ‘Federalism in Nigeria under the Presidential Constitution’ thus:- “Federalism is an arrangement whereby powers of Government within a country are shared between a national, countrywide Government and a number of regionalized (i.e. territorially localized) Governments in such a way that each exists as a Government separately and independently from others operating directly on persons and property within its territorial area, with a will of its own and its own apparatus for the conduct of its affairs. Federalism is thus essentially an arrangement between Governments, a constitutional device by which powers within a country are shared among two tiers of Government.” The above extract of the book gives an insight of what Federalism is, and clearly expresses the independence of Governments under a Federation, the powers of such Governments under a Federation, and the powers of such Governments to make laws that benefit their development and wellbeing are unfettered, and these powers cannot be taken away from them, as long as they do not breach any Constitutional requirement.”

From the above, we can see that the Supreme Court in finding meaning and purports of federalism in Nigeria defines and by extension clarify as to what extent, the power to legislate, govern, and the powers of government is shared among the independent units that make up the whole of the Nigerian Federation.

The Supreme Court in further clarifying the controversies replete in federalism held further in the case of Olafisoye V Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) (Supra) per Tobi J.S.C at P.44, Paras A-C that
“Ideal federalism or true federalism is different from specific or individual federal constitutions of nations, which may not be able to achieve the utopia of that ideal federalism or true federalism but which in their own sphere are called federal constitutions. I think Nigeria falls into the latter category or group. It will, therefore, be wrong to propagate theories based on ideal or true federalism in a nation’s Constitution which does not admit such utopia.”

This is in the wisdom of my Lord is, to say that the idealism of federalism is more often than not different from the realism of federalism, particularly the Nigerian federalism has not in any way shown itself that it is a true federalism notwithstanding her being “blessed” with a federal constitution.

So in short, it is not always the same as practicing true federalism and being called a federal republic or state (by extension) of Nigeria.

The above controversies have also been resolved by the court of Appeal in the case of EDOSACA V OSAKUE & ORS (2018) LPELR.CA/B/469/2014 where the Appeal Court per Oseji J.CA particularly on pages 13 – 14, Paras D – F that
“To properly address this issue it will be expedient to embark on forage of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Section 2 (1) and (2) provides:- 2 (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign State to be known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2 (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory. From the above provision, Nigeria operates a federal system of government. Federalism is defined as the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government i.e. (Central or ‘Federal government’) with regional governments i.e. (States, provincial, cantonal or other sub-units of governments) in a single political system. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government. In modern terms, it is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between the Central and State provincial governments in accordance with the terms and conditions proscribed by the subsisting Constitution. (see Wikipedia). In Nigeria as in a number of other countries, the Constitution provides for a three-tiered system of government. That is to say, the Federal, the State and Local governments. Hence Section 3 (b) of the 1999 Constitution provides for Local Governments as follows:- 3 (b) “There shall be seven hundred and sixty eight local government areas in Nigeria as shown in the Second Column of Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Constitution and six area councils as shown in Part 11 of that Schedule.” Per OSEJI, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-14, Paras. D-F)

This above dictum of the Court of Appeal put a final nail in the coffin of finding meaning to the definition and purports of Nigerian Federalism. It now begs the question, to what extent does the constitution, and the courts divide the power of government between the federating units in Nigeria?

INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THROUGH THE LENS OF THE COURTS
According to the proponents of the theory of Federalism, it is believed that for a state to be believed to be practicing federalism, there must be the presence of an independent judiciary to wit the independence of existence of the judiciary wherein judicial officers are an institution devoid of control or subordination to the other two levels of government.

The constitution particularly Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes extensive provision for the independence of the judiciary and also delineates the power of adjudication to them, without mincing words, the constitution also in Section 4 (8) and 162 (9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended makes provision for the independence of the judiciary and the financial autonomy of the judiciary as provided thus:

4(8) Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law, and accordingly, the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any law, that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law.

“162(9) Any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Federation Account shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Councils for disbursement to the heads of courts established for the Federation and the States under section 6 of this Constitution.”

The Supreme Court in the case of THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS V OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) LPELR-SC.241/1988 (Pp.21-22, paras. C-A) where the apex court held per Obaseki J.SC thus
“The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. It means also that government should be conducted within the frame-work of recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary power which Coke colourfully spoke of as ‘golden and straight metwand of law as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion’ (see 4 Inst. 41). More relevant to the case in hand, the rule of law means that disputes as to the legality of acts of government are to be decided by judges who are wholly independent of the executive. See Wade on Administrative Law 5th Edition p. 22-27. That is the position in this country where the judiciary has been made independent of the executive by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by Decree No. 1 of 1984 and No. 17 of 1985. The judiciary cannot shirk its sacred responsibility to the nation to maintain the rule of law. It is both in the interest of the government and all persons in Nigeria. The law should be even handed between the government and citizens.”

Also, the Court of Appeal also reiterated the independence of the judiciary in the case of ZENITH BANK V IGBOKWE & ANOR (2013) LPELR-CA/B/36/2010 PER OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Pp. 27-28, paras. F-D) that
“I have deemed it compelling to reiterate the trite axiom, that a blatant disrespect to a court of law, in whatever ramification, is antithetical to the rule of law; the fundamental objectives of democracy, and the well cherished independence of the Judiciary. It was aptly observed by this court not too long ago that- The importance of a competent, independent and impartial judiciary in preserving and upholding the rule of law cannot be over emphasized. There is no doubt, that public confidence in the courts, in the integrity of Judges that man such courts, and in the impartiality and efficiency of the administration of justice as a whole, play a great role in sustaining the judicial system of a (democratic) nation. I think it was Mr. Justice Frankfurter, the eminent and fearless US Jurist who once remarked that: “The courts’ authority… possessed of neither the purse nor the sword…ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.” See Baker v. Carr Supreme Court of USA (1962) 369 US 186.” (brackets added). See DENTONWEST VS. MUOMA (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1083) 418 @ 451 paragraph H; 452 paragraphs A – C, per Saulawa, JCA.”

We can also see the ambits of the courts in upholding the sanctity of the judiciary in the case of TENDE & ORS v. A-G FEDERATION & ORS (1988) LPELR-CA/E/185/86 Per KOLAWOLE, J.C.A. (Pp. 23-24, paras. D-A) held that:
“I believe we ought to bear in mind that the court must in the exercise of its solemn and sacred duties, determine whether the act of the Minister of Transport in changing the name of the Port from “Onne Port” to “Ogu Port” be constitutional or not; such an exercise of power is the ultimate and supreme functions of the courts. As Idigbe J.S.C. clearly stated in the Adesanya case, under our Constitution, the government is divided into three separate and independent sections, The Executive, The Legislature and The Judiciary. It is the duty of each section to avoid encroachment by one on the sphere of the other but the Courts must not fight shy to declare an act of the Executive unconstitutional when it patently appears that it is; that, in my view, does not mean that the Courts possess general veto power over the other two arms of Government; its powers properly construed, are supervisory.”

From all the above, even though the constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary, and the financial autonomy of the same, the other arms of government have gone to extreme lengths to ridicule and reduce the independence of the judiciary. It can also be said that the power of the President to single-handedly removed any justices or the judges of the courts without even due process as seen in the case of Chief Justice Onoghen during his tenure constitutes a breach of the constitutional provisions and the decision of the courts.

It is on this premise that many people object to the fact that Nigeria is indeed not a federalist state but in fact practicing something related to federalism – Quasi-Federalism

FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF THE FEDERATING UNITS
Unambiguously, the written constitution of the “1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria As Amended” makes provision for the financial autonomy of the federating units/states as the case may be. However, same as some academics have argued is, is not in conformity with the thoughts of the proponents of federalism. They believe that each and every federating unit should be in control of all finances, resources, money, income, and revenue accrued or generated within their confined territory or jurisdiction. However, such settling or arrangement will be difficult to undergo in Nigeria, this is because the Nigerian state is not an independent unit that came together to form z federal state but federating units or states created because of administrative convenience and as such, defeat the scholarly definition of federalism.

In tandem with the above, the Nigerian Constitution makes provision for the financial autonomy of all federating units in Nigeria particularly Section 162 (1) & (2) of the said constitution which provides for the creation of the Federation Account which all units or states derived or got their resources from and subsection 2 of the said section which provides for the creation of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission which is saddled with the responsibility of providing the President with advice as to and on how the said finances of the units will be undertaken. Section 162 subsections (1) & (2) goes thus:
“162 (1) The Federation shall maintain a special account to be called “the Federation Account” into which shall be paid all revenues collected by the Government of the Federation, except the proceeds from the personal income tax of the personnel of the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force, the Ministry or department of government charged with responsibility for Foreign Affairs and the residents of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
(2) The President, upon the receipt of advice from the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, shall table before the National Assembly proposals for revenue allocation from the Federation Account, and in determining the formula, the National Assembly shall take into account, the allocation principles especially those of population, equality of States, internal revenue generation, land mass, terrain as well as population density;

Provided that the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than thirteen per cent of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources.
This mode of distribution is called revenue allocation which as well, has a special procedure of sharing as enshrined and encapsulated in the provision of the Constitution, particularly Section 162 subsections (1) – (8) where the constitution makes a detailed and vivid allocation of all resources to all levels of governments in Nigeria. This setting or arrangement is known as the Constitutional Right to derive revenue or money from the Federation Account as against the financial autonomy of the federating units which is postulated by the theorists of federalism.

The court in giving life to the above arguments defines revenue in the case of ANSALDO NIGERIA LTD V. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD (1991) LPELR-SC.20/1987 Per OLATAWUKA, J.S.C. (P. 10, paras. E-F) that
“This court defines revenue in the following words: “… revenue in section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree means money or money-worth coming to the purse of the Federal Government.”

Also, in the case of AG & CJ ANAMBRA STATE v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CATTLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION LAGOS STATE & ORS (2016) LPELR-CA/L/772/2011 Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. (P. 13, 07039390934-B) where the Court of Appeal defines the revenue of the Federal Government as:
“In the case of LAWAN v. ZENON PETROLEUM & GAS LTD & ORS (2014) LPELR – 23206(CA), the Court defined the revenue of the Government of the Federation as: “Revenue of the Government of the Federation” refers to the income which the Federal Government collects and receives into its treasury, and is appropriate for the payment of its expenses.”

Also in the case of ANAMBRA STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR v. OBIORA
(2013) LPELR-CA/E/400/2008, the Court of Appeal PER OWOADE J.C.A. (P. 23, Paras. C-F) in deciding the issue that borders on the revenue fund of a state has this to say:
“The Consolidated Revenue Fund of a State, is an account, into which Funds raised or received by the State are paid into. Monies shall be withdrawn from this account to meet the expenditure that is charged upon the fund by the Constitution or where the issue of those moneys has been authorized by an appropriate law, supplementary appropriation law or law passed in pursuance of Section 121 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). See e.g. section 120 of the 1999 constitution.”

In the case of AG LAGOS STATE V AG FEDERATION (2004) S.C.70/2004, the Supreme Court per Uwais CJN has this to say concerning the financial autonomy and the constitutional rights of the level of government to derive their allocation from the consolidate revenue of which the President has no right or authority to put a hold to, this is the holding of the court:
?Next is the question whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was right to direct the Minister of Finance not to release statutory allocations from the Federation Account to the states which created new local government areas or held elections into the new local government councils or failed to maintain a special account called “State Joint Local Government Account” as provided by section 162 subsection (6) of the constitution. It has been argued that the president by virtue of the “Oath of Office,” which he took on assumption of office, he is bound “to protect and defend the constitution”. In addition, the “executive powers of the Federation,” is vested in the President by section 5 sub-section (1) (a) of the constitution and such powers extend to the execution and maintenance of the constitution. This is certainly so, but the question is, does such power extend to the President committing an Illegality? Certainly the Constitution does not and could not have intended that. As I have already shown, the creation of new local government areas or councils is supported by the provisions of the constitution. In other words the taking of such a step or act by Lagos State is not unconstitutional as thought by the President. The constitution fully recognises the step taken that there is still one more step or hurdle to be taken or crossed by the National Assembly for the Plaintiff to actualise the creation of the new local government areas. Our attention has not been drawn to any other provision of the constitution which empowers the President to exercise the power of withholding or suspending any payment of allocation from the Federation Account to Local government Council or to state Government on behalf of the Local Government Councils as provided by section 162 subsections (3) and (5) of the Constitution.”

Lastly, in the case of OMOKOLO & ORS v. REVENUE MOBILIZATION, ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION & ORS (2017) LPELR-CA/MK/147A/2012 (CONSOLIDATED) where the Court of Appeal was saddled with the responsibility of adjudicating on a case that borders on the analyses and interpretation of the extant laws towards giving meaning or aiding the general understanding of the responsibility of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission in giving advice on the sharing of revenue to the Local Government, the Court of Appeal Per EKANEM, J.C.A. ( at Pp. 38-57, Paras. E-C) avail the Constitutional provision for the Local Government and held that they are entitled to their own fair share of the revenue in the Consolidated Federation Account.

From the foregoing and different dicta of the Court, we can see that even though the constitution did not make an arrangement for the financial autonomy of all federating states in Nigeria, it make arrangements as to the Constitutional Rights of each level of government and the federating units thereto deriving resources from the Consolidated Federation Account which is thus an arrangement that seeks to incorporate the requirement of the financial autonomy of all federating units in federalism as espoused by the theorists of federalism.

INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE
It is the belief of the proponents of federalism that for there to be an existence of a federal state/country/nation, there must be the independent existence of each federating unit i.e each level of government must exist on a coordinate basis without being subordinate to any other level or levels of government.

While in good faith, the proponents of federalism seek to find a balance in which to avoid arbitrariness and subordination of one level of government to the other, however, the constitutional drafters in Nigeria in making for the arrangement of federalism for the Nigerian State, preclude such strict adherence to the tenets of federalism in their firm belief that most states or units in the country are no federating units but administrative units for convenience and as such has a weak structure and wouldn’t be able to wield the required power and responsibility expected of them.

This makes the Constitutional Drafters in Nigeria make some arrangement that imposes and seek to enforce the Constitutional Rights of one level of government over the other and vice-versa and also creates room for adjustment of same to avoid the subordination of one level to the other two.

While the arrangement was not a perfect one, the practicability of governance in Nigeria has not been a beautiful one either. This is so because it is an existing fact that the States and the Local Government are subordinate to the Federal Government. From the bailout and loans of the Federal Government given to sinking states and the items exclusively relegated to the Federal government under Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution which deals with the Exclusive Legislative Lists, we can therefore conclude that from the onset, it has been an arrangement of the constitutional drafters to pull power from the other levels of government and concentrate same in a big larger quantity at the center which incidentally is the Federal Government of Nigeria.

It is with this thought that the Supreme Court in the case of AG OF LAGOS STATE v. AG OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2014) LPELR-SC.20/2008 Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 86-87, paras. B-A) held that:
“Section 2 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides: “S.2 (1): Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” S.2(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of the States and a Federal Capital Territory.” On the other hand, with respect to the Government, be it the Federal Government or State Government, Section 14 (2) of the Constitution (supra) provides: “S.14(2): It is hereby, accordingly, declared that – (a) sovereignty belongs to the People of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” The Federal Republic of Nigeria (or the Federation) is the repository of the sovereignty of the people of Nigeria whereas the Federal or State Governments, in contradistinction, are donees of the powers and authority of the people. A Government is a trustee of the power and authority of the people given through elections. Under the Constitution, the government at Federal and state levels comes and goes. Every four years the mandate is renewed or lost at the elections, but the Federation enures in perpetuity.”

The autonomy of each government, which necessarily presupposes its separate existence and its independence from the control of other government, is essential to the federal government. Autonomy of the state governments is the defining principle of true federalism, its foundation or bedrock. The autonomy of the states demands that the federal government should not only keep within the limits of the powers assigned to it by the constitution but also that the exercise of such powers as limited should not in its practical effect impede, frustrate, stultify or otherwise unduly interfere with the state governments’ management of their affairs or their meaningful functioning as a government, e.g. the management of their finances, the appointment, and control of their staff, the award of contracts for the provision of services and projects, the exercise of other essential governmental functions such as law-making or the executive of laws so made – the principle of non-interference with the autonomy of the states, as it is called (Obidimma & Obidimma, 2015).

CONCLUSION
The preceding analysis highlights that federalism in Nigeria has been designed to meet the specific needs and unique features of the Nigerian state. Although it may not conform to the strict definition of federalism espoused by some proponents of the concept, it nonetheless operates in a way that is suited to the specific conditions and peculiarities of Nigeria.

Despite the fact that Nigeria’s federal system is not strictly adhering to the standard model of federalism, it can still be argued that it is functioning in a way that is consistent with the principles and requirements of federalism. By taking into account the specific characteristics of the Nigerian state, including its cultural and ethnic diversity, its political history, and its economic conditions, the federal system in Nigeria has been adapted to fit the needs of the country.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Nigerian government has successfully implemented a federal system that is appropriate for the country’s particular circumstances. This system allows for a balance of power between the central government and the states, as well as providing for the protection of minority rights and promoting regional development. Although it may not be a perfect system, Nigeria’s federalism is one that has been tailored to meet the requirements of the country’s coloration, nature, peculiarity, and circumstances, while still drawing from the key ingredients of federalism as expounded.

Additionally, it is important to note that federalism in Nigeria has undergone significant changes over the years, reflecting the changing political, economic, and social realities of the country. For example, the 1999 Constitution, which is currently in use, has devolved more powers to the states, giving them greater autonomy in certain areas such as agriculture, health, and education. This has been done in recognition of the fact that the needs and priorities of different regions in Nigeria may differ, and as such, there is a need for greater local control.

Furthermore, the Nigerian federal system has also faced numerous challenges, including issues of corruption, political instability, and the marginalization of certain regions. These challenges have highlighted the need for ongoing reform to ensure that federalism continues to serve the best interests of the country and its citizens.
In conclusion, the Nigerian federal system has been designed to suit the specific circumstances and peculiarities of the country, while still adhering to the principles of federalism. Although it may not conform to a strict interpretation of the concept, it nonetheless provides a framework for the distribution of power and resources between the central government and the states, promoting greater autonomy and regional development. It is important for Nigeria to continue to monitor and adapt its federal system to address ongoing challenges and ensure that it remains an effective and efficient means of governing the country.

REFERENCES
Alameyeseigha, D. (2005). Oil Exploration and Youth Restiveness, the Example of Bayelsa State. Tell Magazine No. 16 April 18.
Amah, E .I. (2016a). A Critical Appraisal of the Federal Features of the Nigerian Constitution. Ebonyi State University Law Journal, 7.
Amah, E. I. (2011). A Critical Analysis of the Federal and States Taxing Powers in Nigeria. Journal of Commercial and Contemporary Law, 1.
Amah, E. I. (2013). Nigerian Federalism and the Issue of Resource Ownership and Management: An Appraisal. Confluence Journal of Jurisprudence on International Law, 6, No. 2.
Amah, E. I. (2016b). Federalism, Democracy and Constitutionalism: The Nigerian Experience. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 53.
Amah, E. I. (2017). Nigeria: The Search for Autochthonous Constitution. Beijing Law Review, 8, 141-158.
Amuwo, K. et al. (1998). Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Anam-Ndu, E. A. (2007). Fiscal Federalism, Resource Control and Violence in the Niger Delta. Being Text of Paper Presented at Center for Minority and Development Studies, Uyo, at the National Association of Seadog’s Town Hall Meeting Held at Eden Hotel, Eket on Saturday May 5.
Anthony, E. O. et al. (2004). Federalism and National Integration in Nigeria. Onitsha: Bookpoint Ltd.
E.I. Amah, Federalism, Democracy and Constitutionalism. Op.cit., p. 2.
Dudley (1973) Instability and Political Order: Political Crises in Nigeria, (Ibadan: Ibadan University press, 1973) p. 25.
Mackintosh (1962) Federalism in Nigeria, Political Studies, 10, 3 (1962), p. 223.
The Committee stated the federal governments of USA, Canada and Australia have been built on the basis of separate states surrendering to a federal government some of their powers for the benefit of all. The reverse process on which we are engaged―that of the creation of a federal government by devolution―is a political experiment for which… there is no precedent to guide us and we are very conscious of the dangers involved in such an experiment. See Nwabueze (2007), How President Obasanjo Subverted Nigeria’s Federal System, (Ibadan: Gold Press Ltd, 2007) p.403.
J. P. Mackintosh, Op. cit.
Larry Diamond (1988) Class, Ethnicity and Democracy in Nigeria: The Failure of the First Republic. (London Macmillan press, 1988), p. 26.
Udoma (1994) History and Law of the Constitution of Nigeria (Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd.,) p. 7, C. Chukwujekwu, Historical Origin and Evolution of Nigerian Federalism, in Anthony & Obiajulu (eds.) (2004) Federalism and National Integration in Nigeria, (Onitsha: Book Point Ltd.) 19, Nwabueze (1995), Constitutional History of Nigeria (Spectrum Books Ltd.) 1995, p.11.
Donald Rotchild, State-Ethnic Relations in middle Africa, in Gwendolen and Patrick (1985), eds. African Independence: the First Twenty-Five Years. (Bloomington, in Indianan University Press, 1985) pp. 71-96.
On the Philosophical basis of this phenomenon, see Dudley (1975), “Skepticism and political Virtue” Inaugural lecture, University of Ibadan, 1975, p.
CITED CASES
OLAFISOYE V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2004) LPELR-SC.316/2001
ATTORNEY GENERAL FEDERATION V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2013) LPELR-SC.340/2010
EDOSACA V OSAKUE & ORS (2018) LPELR.CA/B/469/2014
THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS V OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) LPELR-SC.241/1988
ZENITH BANK V IGBOKWE & ANOR (2013) LPELR-CA/B/36/2010
TENDE & ORS v. A-G FEDERATION & ORS (1988) LPELR-CA/E/185/86
ANSALDO NIGERIA LTD V. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD (1991) LPELR-SC.20/1987
AG LAGOS STATE V AG FEDERATION (2004) S.C.70/2004
AG & CJ ANAMBRA STATE v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CATTLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION LAGOS STATE & ORS (2016) LPELR-CA/L/772/2011
ANAMBRA STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR v. OBIORA (2013) LPELR-CA/E/400/2008
OMOKOLO & ORS v. REVENUE MOBILIZATION, ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION & ORS (2017) LPELR-CA/MK/147A/2012 (CONSOLIDATED)
AG OF LAGOS STATE v. AG OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2014) LPELR-SC.20/2008

Adebayo Mubarak Adewumi
adebayomubarak68@gmail.com
08102710219