Nigeria’s governance challenges, persistent insecurity, uneven development, and institutional dysfunction have revived the debate over federalism versus centralisation. Today, the country operates a federal system in form but centralises power in practice. States often lack the resources, autonomy, and administrative capacity to implement policies effectively, while the centre struggles to deliver public goods efficiently. Cooperative federalism, a model that balances national standards with subnational autonomy, offers a compelling framework, but it demands careful qualification, political realism, and institutional foresight.
Cooperative federalism rests on the principle that no single tier of government can resolve Nigeria’s structural problems alone. Security, education reform, agricultural modernisation, and economic diversification all require solutions that intersect federal responsibilities and local realities. Countries such as Germany, Canada, and India have combined national standards with subnational flexibility, demonstrating that decentralised governance can enhance efficiency and accountability. However, assuming that structural redesign alone will fix Nigeria’s systemic dysfunction is overly simplistic. Without professional public services, enforceable accountability, and a culture of compliance, federalism risks replicating the inefficiencies it seeks to solve.
Read also: Rethinking Nigeria’s search for true Federalism
Nigeria’s recent experience illustrates both the potential and limits of cooperation. The Western Nigeria Security Network (Amotekun), created in 2020 by South-West governors to address herder-farmer conflicts, faced legal challenges from the federal government, citing exclusive constitutional authority over security. The eventual compromise allowed Amotekun to operate only state by state, undermining the network’s original regional logic. Had there been a cooperative framework with shared oversight, intelligence, and funding between states and the centre, the initiative could have achieved scale and impact while respecting federal authority. Similarly, fiscal transfers intended to support education and social services often falter due to misalignment, weak oversight, or political interference. In 2024, the failure of some states to provide counterpart funding left ₦263 billion unaccessed under the Universal Basic Education programme, leaving 17.8 million children out of school. Cooperative mechanisms could enforce accountability while allowing flexibility for state-specific challenges.
Critics raise legitimate concerns. Greater state autonomy may empower local elites, deepen corruption, or entrench ethno-political fiefdoms. Others note that fiscal realities, where states are heavily dependent on federal allocations, limit the practicality of decentralisation. Indeed, over-centralisation also fails when the federal government lacks administrative reach. Both problems are evident today. A cooperative approach works only when both tiers commit to shared objectives, measurable performance metrics, and transparent resource management.
Political economic realities cannot be ignored. Centralisation persists because it concentrates power and resources at the centre, providing incentives for federal actors to maintain control. Likewise, state leaders often avoid revenue reforms, preferring federal bailouts. Even more, the public alternates between expectations of government action and requests for autonomy. Ignoring these incentives runs the danger of creating a theoretically sound but politically unworkable approach. Not only must constitutional adjustments be made for cooperative federalism to be effective, but incentives must also be rearranged such that performance is more evident than patronage and cooperation is more lucrative than opposition.
Operationalising cooperative federalism requires concrete tools. Intergovernmental councils, issue-specific compacts on security, energy, and education, and harmonised development plans are essential. For instance, the new Electricity Act 2023 allows states to regulate power generation and distribution locally, creating opportunities for regional electricity markets in Lagos-Ogun or Kaduna-Kano. Security compacts could also allow neighbouring states to pool resources, share intelligence, and coordinate anti-banditry operations, transforming historically neglected borderlands into governed and economically active spaces. Without such instruments, cooperation risks remaining an abstract concept.
Read also: Beyond division of powers: Cooperative models to enhance public service delivery in Nigeria
Security and social cohesion remain critical constraints. Cooperative federalism presumes minimum trust between the centre and states. In Nigeria, ethnic tensions, insurgency, and banditry complicate collaboration. States cannot cooperate fully if insecurity undermines governance, and the centre cannot devolve power where ungoverned spaces exist. These realities require phased reforms, capacity building, and careful monitoring of pilot initiatives.
Historical lessons matter. The First Republic’s federalism is often romanticised but was marked by uneven development and regional rivalry, while decades of military centralisation created bureaucratic habits that resist collaboration. A modern cooperative system must balance national cohesion with subnational innovation, embedding reforms within Nigeria’s political and administrative realities.
Ultimately, cooperative federalism offers the most pragmatic path forward. It recognises Nigeria’s scale, diversity, and uneven development while avoiding the extremes of absolute centralisation or unchecked regional autonomy. When properly designed, responsibilities are shared rather than duplicated, innovation is encouraged, and accountability flows both horizontally and vertically; it is not a silver bullet. Its success hinges on leadership integrity, political courage, and the willingness to align incentives with national goals. For Nigeria, embracing cooperative federalism is less about constitutional theory than about operationalising governance in a way that delivers tangible results to citizens.
