Every enduring nation must eventually answer one fundamental question: Who truly belongs? Until that question is answered through institutions rather than sentiment, nationhood remains unfinished.
Alhaji Buba Galadima’s recent remarks on Arise Television have once again brought the “Igbo Question” into Nigeria’s political consciousness. His argument was straightforward: if political actors reject an Igbo presidential candidate solely because of ethnicity, they should not expect the support of Igbo voters during elections. Whether one agrees with his political calculation is almost beside the point. The enduring significance of his intervention lies in the deeper constitutional and philosophical question it exposes. More than fifty-five years after the Nigerian Civil War and more than a century after the amalgamation of 1914, why should the ethnicity of a presidential aspirant still influence perceptions of political legitimacy in a constitutional democracy founded on the equality of citizens?
The instinctive answer is to return once again to what has become known as the Igbo Question. Yet that phrase itself has become part of the problem. It suggests that Nigeria is confronted by a uniquely Igbo grievance requiring a uniquely Igbo solution. It narrows a national crisis into an ethnic conversation. In reality, the Igbo Question is not Nigeria’s problem; it is Nigeria’s diagnostic instrument. It reveals whether the Nigerian state has succeeded in transforming a collection of ethnic nationalities into a community of equal citizens. If the answer is yes, then there is ultimately no Igbo Question. If the answer is no, every ethnic group will eventually have its own question.
This is why the future of the Igbo Question lies not in another round of elite bargaining over zoning, rotation or political symbolism. It lies in constructing what I call the Nigerian Answer: a constitutional, political and moral compact, in which citizenship is stronger than ethnicity, institutions stronger than patronage, and justice stronger than grievance. The Nigerian Answer is not an ethnic settlement. It is a nation-building framework.
Nigeria’s challenge did not begin with the Civil War. It began with the creation of the Nigerian state itself. The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates on 1 January 1914 created an administrative entity, but it did not create a nation. More than 250 ethnic nationalities, multiple religious traditions and diverse political systems were brought together under a single colonial authority without a shared social contract. Independence in 1960 transferred power from British officials to Nigerian leaders, but it did not automatically produce a common civic identity. Nationhood is not inherited. It is built.
The constitutional evolution that followed reflected this unfinished project. The Richards Constitution of 1946, the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 were all attempts to reconcile diversity with unity through constitutional engineering. Yet beneath those debates lay familiar anxieties. The North feared domination. The West feared marginalisation. The East feared exclusion. Minority communities feared absorption into larger regional blocs. These were not isolated fears. They were different expressions of the same national dilemma: how could diverse peoples build a common political future without losing their identities?
The Civil War did not create that dilemma; it exposed it with devastating clarity. Between 1967 and 1970, Nigeria fought not only for territorial integrity but also for the legitimacy of the Nigerian idea. General Yakubu Gowon’s declaration of “No Victor, No Vanquished” remains one of the most statesmanlike statements in our history because it acknowledged a profound truth. Military victory could preserve the federation. Only reconciliation, justice and inclusion could build a nation. More than five decades later, the persistence of debates over exclusion, belonging and representation suggests that the work of nation-building remains incomplete.
The mistake we continue to make is to interpret these debates through ethnic lenses. The Igbo Question is treated as though it concerns only the South-East. Yet a graduate in Kano searching unsuccessfully for employment, a farmer in Benue living with insecurity, a fisherman in Bayelsa confronting environmental degradation, a trader in Aba navigating poor infrastructure and an entrepreneur in Lagos frustrated by weak institutions are all asking variations of the same question: Can the Nigerian state guarantee justice, opportunity and dignity regardless of identity? Their experiences differ, but the underlying concern is remarkably similar. The issue is not fundamentally who occupies Aso Rock. It is whether Nigerians experience the state as fair, competent and worthy of trust.
The late Claude Ake argued that Africa’s crisis was fundamentally one of political legitimacy before it was one of economic development. Peter Ekeh explained why citizens often display stronger moral obligations to their ethnic communities than to the civic state. Ali Mazrui described post-colonial African states as navigating the tension between indigenous identities, colonial inheritances and modern constitutional aspirations. Together, these thinkers illuminate the Nigerian condition. Ethnic politics is often less the cause of weak states than the consequence of them. When institutions fail to inspire confidence, citizens retreat into ethnicity because identity offers the protection that the state has failed to provide.
The Nigerian Answer begins by reversing that logic. The purpose of a democratic republic is not to erase diversity but to ensure that diversity no longer determines the distribution of rights, opportunities or political legitimacy. Citizenship must become more meaningful than ancestry. Federalism must become a mechanism for inclusion rather than perpetual negotiation. Economic opportunity must be sufficiently broad-based to reduce the appeal of zero-sum identity politics. Above all, institutions, from the courts and the electoral system to the police, the civil service and public administration, must become more credible than ethnic patronage networks. Successful nations are not those that eliminate differences. They are those that build institutions strong enough to reassure every citizen that difference will never determine their worth.
This is where the debate reignited by Alhaji Galadima acquires significance beyond electoral politics. His intervention should not be reduced to whether one supports an Igbo presidency or a particular political party. The more important question is whether Nigeria has reached the stage of democratic maturity where the ethnic identity of a qualified presidential candidate should no longer provoke national anxiety. In established democracies, the legitimacy of leadership derives from constitutional process and public confidence, not from inherited identity. Nigeria cannot aspire to a different standard indefinitely without weakening the very idea of equal citizenship.
The implications extend well beyond Nigeria. Across Africa, many states continue to wrestle with the unfinished business of nationhood. Cameroon confronts the Anglophone crisis. Ethiopia continues to debate ethnicity and federalism. Sudan’s unresolved identity conflicts culminated in partition and the birth of South Sudan. The Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to grapple with the relationship between regional identities and national citizenship. These cases remind us that Africa’s greatest challenge is not diversity. Diversity is the continent’s historical condition. The challenge is building states in which citizenship commands greater loyalty than ethnicity because justice, fairness and constitutional equality are experienced rather than merely proclaimed.
Nigeria is uniquely positioned to contribute to that conversation. As Africa’s most populous country and one of its most diverse societies, it represents perhaps the continent’s greatest experiment in plural nationhood. If Nigeria succeeds in building a republic where over 250 ethnic nationalities see themselves first as equal citizens without surrendering their cultural identities, it will offer one of the most significant contributions to African political thought since independence. The Nigerian Answer could become more than a domestic framework. It could become an African framework for managing diversity through democratic institutions rather than perpetual political bargaining.
That possibility demands a shift in our national conversation. We must stop asking only whether the Igbo have been treated fairly, important as that question remains. We must begin asking whether the Nigerian state treats every Nigerian fairly. We must move beyond debates over which region should produce the next President to the more fundamental task of building institutions that make every qualified citizen a legitimate contender. The quality of a republic is measured not by how often it rotates power among identities, but by how effectively it guarantees equal citizenship to all.
The debate over the Igbo Question should therefore continue, but on different terms. Its purpose should not be to secure another ethnic accommodation. Its purpose should be to compel Nigeria to complete the nation-building project that began in 1914, gained political independence in 1960 and survived civil war in 1970. The real challenge before Nigeria is no longer whether the country can remain together. History has answered that. The challenge is whether it can become the kind of nation where no citizen needs to ask whether he or she truly belongs.
That is the Nigerian Answer.
It is not an answer to the Igbo alone. It is an answer to every Nigerian who believes that citizenship should matter more than ancestry, that institutions should matter more than patronage, and that justice should matter more than identity. If Nigeria can build such a republic, it will do more than resolve one of its oldest political debates. It will demonstrate to Africa, and indeed to other plural societies around the world, that diversity need not be a fault line. Properly governed, it can become the foundation of democratic strength, national resilience and shared prosperity.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
John Onyeukwu, is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
Access Holdings’ Ghana minority stake sale signals strategic capital repositioning