The Brown–Bwala Exchange: A Case Study in Nigeria’s Federalism Confusion ||Timilehin Kolade
The recent exchange between Ibadan-based broadcast journalist Isaac Brown and presidential spokesman Daniel Bwala offered yet another glimpse into the persistent confusion that surrounds discussions of federalism in Nigeria. While Bwala appeared to defend the realities of Nigeria’s constitutional arrangement from the standpoint of political practicality, Brown’s interventions suggested a limited appreciation of the philosophical and institutional foundations of federalism. The conversation was therefore less a debate about federalism and more a reflection of Nigeria’s collective misunderstanding of the concept.
This is unfortunate because federalism remains one of the most important constitutional questions confronting the Nigerian state. Yet it is also one of the most misunderstood. Public discussions often reduce federalism to resource control, state police, revenue allocation, or restructuring. While these issues are relevant, they do not capture the essence of federalism. Consequently, debates on the subject frequently generate more rhetoric than insight.
Federalism, in its classical sense, is neither a political slogan nor a constitutional ornament. It is a carefully designed system of government that seeks to reconcile unity with diversity. At its core, federalism is built upon the principle of shared rule and self-rule. The central government exercises authority over matters of common concern, while constituent units retain constitutionally guaranteed autonomy over issues within their jurisdiction.
The critical point is that this autonomy does not exist at the pleasure of the central government. In a genuine federation, the federating units derive their authority directly from the constitution. Their powers cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn by the centre. This distinguishes federal systems from decentralized unitary states, where powers delegated to subnational governments can be reclaimed by the central authority.
It is within this context that Nigeria’s federalism debate often loses direction. The country formally operates a federal system, yet many of its institutional features resemble those of a centralized state. The concentration of powers in Abuja over security, mineral resources, rail transportation, energy infrastructure, and several other strategic sectors has led many observers to characterize the arrangement as pseudo-federalism.
To that extent, Bwala’s arguments reflected the practical realities of Nigeria’s constitutional structure. However, describing existing realities does not necessarily amount to an explanation of federalism’s underlying principles. A distinction must always be made between what exists and what ought to exist. The fact that Nigeria operates a highly centralized federation does not invalidate the theoretical ideals upon which federalism is founded.
Brown’s position, on the other hand, appeared to reveal a more fundamental problem. Criticisms of Nigeria’s constitutional order must themselves be anchored in a proper understanding of federalism. Without a grasp of the concept’s intellectual foundations, opposition to centralization risks becoming little more than political agitation devoid of constitutional depth.
This points to a broader challenge in Nigeria’s political discourse. Many commentators speak passionately about federalism without engaging its historical evolution, theoretical foundations, and comparative experiences. As a result, conversations frequently revolve around outcomes rather than principles. Participants discuss what they want federalism to achieve without first defining what federalism actually is.
A meaningful federal system is not merely about devolving powers from Abuja to the states. It is equally about accountability, constitutionalism, institutional capacity, and democratic responsibility. States seeking greater autonomy must also demonstrate the ability to govern effectively, manage resources prudently, and remain accountable to their citizens. Federalism without accountability simply relocates inefficiency from one level of government to another.
Moreover, federalism should not be viewed exclusively through an economic lens. Its deeper purpose is political. It is designed to manage diversity, prevent domination, accommodate competing identities, and promote national cohesion through constitutional balance. The durability of successful federations around the world is rooted not merely in the distribution of resources but in the distribution of power.
The danger in contemporary Nigerian discourse is that federalism is increasingly treated as a political weapon rather than a constitutional principle. Politicians invoke it when convenient and abandon it when circumstances change. Analysts often discuss it from partisan perspectives rather than constitutional ones. Consequently, public understanding remains shallow, and genuine reform becomes more difficult.
The Brown–Bwala exchange should therefore be viewed as more than an isolated media encounter. It serves as a case study in Nigeria’s federalism confusion. One participant appeared constrained by the realities of a pseudo-federal arrangement, while the other seemed insufficiently grounded in the theoretical and constitutional ideals of federalism. Together, they inadvertently demonstrated why the national conversation on federalism remains trapped in a cycle of misunderstanding.
Nigeria deserves a more rigorous engagement with the subject. Federalism is too important to be reduced to talking points, partisan loyalties, or media theatrics. It demands constitutional literacy, historical awareness, and intellectual discipline. Until the debate moves beyond personalities and political expediency, the country will continue to discuss federalism without fully understanding its meaning, purpose, and possibilities.
The challenge before Nigeria is not merely whether to restructure or devolve powers. The challenge is whether the country is prepared to have an honest and intellectually grounded conversation about the nature of federalism itself. That conversation remains long overdue.