Professor Oladipo Adamolekun, a distinguished scholar of public administration, remains a staunch advocate for the devolution of power in Nigeria. He argues that the current over-concentration of power and resources at the federal level hinders development and impedes the nation’s progress. Despite repeated calls for restructuring, including his own publications and the recommendations of various committees and conferences, successive administrations have failed to implement meaningful devolution. Professor Adamolekun criticizes the current administration for deviating from its own manifesto promises to empower subnational governments. Instead, he observes a trend towards greater centralization through the creation of a Federal Ministry of Regional Development and zonal development commissions, actions he deems contradictory to the principle of devolution. He emphasizes that no nation with such a centralized structure has achieved significant development.
Professor Adamolekun expresses concern over the government’s approach to local government autonomy. While he supports the Supreme Court’s ruling mandating democratically elected local governments, he criticizes the court’s decision on financial autonomy, which he argues contradicts the constitution. Specifically, he objects to the idea of local government finances being determined from Abuja, viewing it as a further centralization of power. He commends Anambra State Governor Soludo for passing a local government law that mandates democratic elections while adhering to the constitutional provision for joint local government account committees at the state level. He urges other states to follow Soludo’s example, rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court’s verdict on local government autonomy offers a viable path to reforming Nigeria’s federal system.
The professor advocates for a substantial shift in resource allocation, proposing a 65:35 split in favor of subnational governments, mirroring the arrangement prevalent in the early years of Nigeria’s federalism. He credits this earlier period of devolution, championed by leaders like Tafawa Balewa, with fostering significant development across the regions. He laments the subsequent erosion of this system under military rule, which, he argues, contributed to Nigeria’s current challenges, including its status as a poverty capital and its high infant mortality rate. He emphasizes the importance of devolution in consolidating democracy and achieving rapid socio-economic development, contrasting the progress seen under devolved regional governance with the current stagnation and insecurity plaguing the nation.
Professor Adamolekun strongly opposes any return to military rule, citing the experiences under former military leaders Obasanjo and Buhari. While acknowledging some economic gains during Obasanjo’s tenure, he criticizes both leaders for their centralizing tendencies, rooted, he believes, in their military backgrounds. He contrasts their approach with the stated intentions of the late President Yar’Adua, who had pledged to review and scrap laws contrary to the federal system. He also mentions the 2014 National Conference convened by President Jonathan, which produced recommendations largely aligned with his own views on devolution, with the exception of its proposal to increase the number of states, a move he believes would further weaken subnational entities.
He expresses disappointment that the Buhari administration ignored the 2014 Confab report and the El-Rufai-led APC committee report on restructuring. He attributes Buhari’s inaction to his military background and adherence to a unitary mindset. He similarly critiques the current administration’s failure to implement its manifesto promises on devolution, pointing to the Vice President’s contradicting statements and the creation of centralized regional development structures. He reiterates that prioritizing devolution is crucial for addressing Nigeria’s multifaceted challenges.
Professor Adamolekun firmly believes that devolution should be the first step in any national reform agenda. He criticizes the current approach of centrally controlling local government finances as counterproductive to building a truly federal system. He draws a parallel with India, where different states develop at varying paces, learning from each other’s successes. He contrasts this with Nigeria’s current situation, where a uniform underdevelopment and insecurity offer no positive models for emulation. He underscores the need for a return to a system where regions, empowered with resources and autonomy, can drive their own development and contribute to a more prosperous and equitable Nigeria.
