Restructuring: Is Nigeria’s Problem The Constitution Or Its Operators?

By Olu Fasan

The commonest riposte by opponents of the call for political restructuring in Nigeria is that Nigeria’s problem is not its political system or its Constitution but the operators. I refer to this as the “culture versus structure” argument in my forthcoming book In The National Interest.

Put simply, those blaming the operators of the Constitution, and not the Constitution itself, subscribe to the “culture hypothesis”, which attributes a country’s poverty or prosperity to the culture and behaviour of its leaders and citizens, and not the kind of institutions it has. By contrast, adherents of the “structure hypothesis” posit that the nature of institutions, governance structures and political systems determines the success or failure of a nation. The nature/structure dichotomy is central to the restructuring debate in Nigeria.

Like all schools of thought, both hypotheses have their patron saints. On the “structure” front is Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the cerebral former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, while the “culture” brigade has Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the auctorial former president, as its chief defender. Recently, both squared up, good-naturedly, on the issue.

Last month, on July 16, the Patriots, a group led by Chief Anyaoku, convened a three-day national summit on “The Future of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy” in Abuja. Addressing the summit, Anyaoku repeated his call for a truly federal Constitution for Nigeria, saying: “Experience all over the world has shown that pluralistic countries that have survived as political entities are those that operate truly federal constitutions.” 

Responding, former President Obasanjo rejected the notion that Nigeria’s problem lies in its current Constitution.  “Whatever the strength or weakness of a constitution,” Obasanjo said, “the most important issue to my own understanding and experience are the operators of the constitution.”

Well, besides the venerable patron saints, both schools of thought also have devotees in the media and among political pundits fighting their respective corners. ThisDay and many of its writers are squarely on the “culture” side of the restructuring debate. In a July 22 editorial titled “Issues from ‘The Patriots’ Summit”, ThisDay said: “It is remarkable that former President Olusegun Obasanjo aligns with the position of this newspaper that the real problem in Nigeria is more with the operators than the system.” From the commentariat also came a voice for “culture” school. In an article titled “The 1999 Constitution: Between Obasanjo and Anyaoku” (Vanguard, July 30, 2025), the veteran journalist Mohammed Haruna said: “It is hard, if not impossible, to disagree with Obasanjo.”

Of course, Chief Anyaoku is not left alone to fly the banner for the “structure” school. Lining up behind him are several newspapers and commentators. There are strong pro-restructuring voices among the media, including this newspaper, Vanguard, but The Punch is arguably the most vociferous. In a July 29 editorial titled “True Federalism: Listen to the Patriots’ Call”, The Punch said President Tinubu “should set up a constituent assembly to decide a new federal constitution for Nigeria, as advocated by the Patriots”, adding that the Patriots’ “renewed call for genuine federalism is timely and essential.” 

Well, regular readers of this column know where I stand. I am a dyed-in-the-wool adherent of the “structure” school, and strongly believe that Nigeria’s problem stems, primarily, from its deeply flawed political and governance structures, which incentivise and reward the behaviour of the operators. In other words, the operators’ behaviour is a product of the system, not an independent cause.

Truth be told, the view that the form of government or type of constitution doesn’t matter, but the operators, is intellectually shallow. According to an empirical study by Bernd Hayo and Stefan Voigt, published in a paper titled “Determinants of Constitutional Changes: Why Do Countries Change Their Form of Government?” there were 123 changes in the form of government in 169 countries from 1950 to 2003. If the form of government doesn’t matter, why did 169 countries make changes to theirs? In 2015, Sri Lanka ditched its executive presidency in favour of the prime-ministership. Why didn’t Sri Lankans say it’s the operators that matter and stick with the executive presidency? 

Next time someone says the form of government doesn’t matter, tell them to study constitutional changes across the world. Or ask them to tell the Canadians, the Swiss or even the South Africans that their system of government is irrelevant and they should have an overcentralised political system that concentrates unfettered power in the hands of an all-powerful “executive president”. To be sure, no constitution or form of government is perfect, but some constitutional forms are more suited to some countries than to others. For instance, what works for a homogenous country won’t work for a heterogenous one. Unfortunately, those saying that the form of government or type of constitution doesn’t matter but its operators blithely ignore this universal truth.

Which brings us back to the culture versus structure argument. In their seminal book Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, economics Nobel laureates, tackled the culture hypothesis head-on, and concluded, based on empirical evidence, that a country is poor or rich not because of some cultural traits but because of the type of institutions it has. According to the authors: “As institutions influence behaviour and incentives in real life, they forge the success or failure of nations.” Of course, culture matters, but the right institutions can constrain adverse culture. 

That’s why successful nations have robust institutions that incentivise good behaviours and constrain bad ones. But Nigeria has extractive political institutions that concentrate and centralise power and encourage the culture of impunity. Yet, some blame the operators of the system for exploiting the perverse incentives that the system itself creates. They don’t understand how institutions and incentives work. 

Take the Constitution. Is Nigeria a true federal system? Certainly not. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a true federal system has two critical characteristics: non-centralisation and local autonomy. Nigeria’s “federalism” fails these tests. The Exclusive Legislative List in the Constitution contains 67 items and “(a)ny matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned elsewhere in the list” Basically, the scope is limitless. 

The Concurrent Legislative List contains items on which both the federal and state governments can legislate, yet federal laws prevail. Where is the federalism when powers are so centralised? By contrast, the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution delegates limited powers to the Federal Government and reserves all non-delegated powers to the states. 

In their book titled Nigeria: What Everyone Needs to Know, John Campbell and Matthew Page said that “the Nigerian president is freer of constraints than any American president could ever be.” They added: “Nigerian federalism is quite flawed and more aspirational than real in many ways.” Yet, Haruna wrote that Nigerian and American Constitutions have “common features” and that “Washington DC, the US capital, exerts far greater power and authority over its 50 states than Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, exerts over its 36 states”. Really? Haruna thinks he knows the two systems better than Campbell, a former US Ambassador to Nigeria. Sadly, such misinformation and befuddled thinking underpin the perverse view that Nigeria’s problem is not the system, but the operators. 

No, it’s the system. The 1999 Constitution is irredeemably flawed. The overcentralised political and governance structures and the extractive state that it creates are what incentivise the operators’ behaviours. Angels don’t run nations, humans do; it’s the right institutions that make the difference. So, stop blaming the operators, fix the failed system!  

*Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues