1999 Constitution Favours North, Undermines Nigeria’s Stability – Senator Okurounmu

ABEOKUTA – A former senator who represented Ogun Central Senatorial District, Senator Femi Okurounmu, has alleged that Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution structurally favours the northern region, warning that the imbalance has continued to shape governance outcomes and deepen political and economic challenges across the country.

Speaking during an exclusive interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State on Wednesday, the elder statesman of the First Senate examined the relationship between democratic governance and economic policy while raising concerns about the foundation upon which Nigeria’s democracy is built.

He argued that without addressing these structural concerns, efforts at national development may continue to face significant setbacks.

Okurounmu, a chieftain of the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere, maintained that the current constitutional framework has created a system where political power is unevenly distributed, thereby affecting decision-making at the highest levels of government.

He stressed that this imbalance has not only shaped legislative outcomes but has also influenced policy direction and governance priorities over time.

“I will let you know that the problem is much more complicated than that. I told you, the 1999 constitution has more or less tilted all the structures of governance in favor of the north.

“The north has infiltrated the central government so much that whoever is the president does not matter. The north still controls the government. Whoever is the president of Nigeria at this stage with our present constitution and with the present structures of governance does not matter.”

According to him, the implications of such structural inequality are far-reaching, particularly in a diverse country like Nigeria where equitable representation is critical to unity and stability.

The former lawmaker described the 1999 Constitution as lacking democratic legitimacy, insisting that it was not a product of popular participation but rather a document imposed by the military.

He traced its origin to the administration of former Head of State, General Sani Abacha, noting that the process leading to its adoption did not involve adequate consultation with Nigerians.

This, he said, has continued to raise questions about its credibility and acceptance among citizens.

He said, “The 1999 constitution was simply a decree which Abacha brought out and turned into a constitution for us. And that so-called constitution was not even made known to the public until after the elections so that even the president who was going to take over did not, was not aware of the constitution by which he was going to govern when he was contesting election. So, I would say it was not really a constitution, it was a decree and Abacha just brought it out and transmitted it into a constitution and gave it to the president after election.”

Okurounmu further argued that the constitution shares significant similarities with the 1979 Constitution, which he claimed also contained structural imbalances that have persisted into the present system. He noted that these inherited features have continued to influence governance patterns in ways that are not entirely equitable.

“And a lot of the provisions are very similar to that of the 1979 constitution which, you know, was engineered by Murtala Muhammad and Obasanjo and most of the provisions in that constitution are very unequitable insofar as governance in Nigeria is concerned. The 1999 constitution which, as I have said, is a close relationship to the 1979 one virtually gives veto power to the north over how Nigeria will be governed. All the structures of governance are tilted to the north.” He added.

Expanding on his position, Okurounmu asserted that the current political structure gives the northern region a numerical advantage in the National Assembly, thereby shaping legislative outcomes.

He explained that the number of states and local government areas in the North translates directly into greater representation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

According to him, this imbalance has significant implications for lawmaking and national decision-making.

He said, “The north has advantages in the number of states and which means it also has advantages in the number of senators in the national assembly. The north has advantages in the number of local governments which means it also has an overwhelming advantage in the number of members of the House of Representatives in the national assembly. So, when you look at our lawmakers, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in fact that house is a house where the north holds veto power because no decision can be taken in those houses unless the north is agreeable to it.”

The former senator added that such dominance creates a situation where other regions may feel marginalised, thereby fuelling agitation and dissatisfaction. He stressed that for a federation to function effectively, there must be a sense of balance and fairness in representation.

Okurounmu also reflected on decades of efforts aimed at restructuring Nigeria, noting that several initiatives have been undertaken without yielding meaningful results.

He recalled his involvement in various reform movements and policy discussions, including his role in the 2014 National Conference, which was convened to address some of the country’s structural challenges.

According to him, the conference produced recommendations that could have significantly improved governance.

He said, “We spent years advocating for restructuring and participated in processes that were meant to correct these imbalances, including the 2014 National Conference. That conference came up with recommendations that, if implemented, would have brought some level of fairness and efficiency into the system. Unfortunately, those recommendations were ignored, and since then they have remained largely unimplemented despite their potential benefits.”

He expressed disappointment that successive administrations have not demonstrated the political will required to implement these reforms. He argued that the failure to act on such recommendations has contributed to the persistence of governance challenges.

The elder statesman further argued that the current constitutional structure limits the effectiveness of elected leaders, including the president.

He suggested that the system itself, rather than individuals in office, plays a more significant role in determining governance outcomes. This, he said, explains why changes in leadership have not necessarily translated into substantial improvements.

“Whoever is the president under this constitution does not really matter as much as people think, because the structure itself controls governance.

The way power is distributed and exercised makes it difficult for any president to implement far-reaching changes, even if they have the intention to do so. That is why we continue to see similar challenges persist across different administrations.” He said.

Okurounmu noted that even the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu operates within these constraints. He maintained that without structural reforms, expectations for transformative governance may remain unmet.

On the issue of insecurity, Okurounmu linked the country’s security challenges to broader systemic and structural issues within governance.

He argued that the persistence of violence and instability cannot be fully understood without examining the underlying political framework. According to him, the current situation reflects deeper problems that go beyond isolated incidents.

He said, “When you look at the insecurity situation in Nigeria today, it is not something that can be explained away as mere criminality or isolated acts of violence. There are deeper systemic issues at play, and these issues are connected to how the country is structured and governed. Until we address those underlying problems, it will be difficult to achieve lasting peace and stability.”

He emphasised that addressing insecurity requires not only military or security responses but also political and structural solutions.

Okurounmu also touched on the ongoing agitation for an Igbo nation, noting that while the aspiration for self-determination is not inherently wrong, the methods being employed by some separatist groups raise concerns.

He stressed that the use of force, intimidation, and internal conflict undermines legitimate calls for independence and peace.

According to him, if ethnic nationalities engage in dialogue and pursue their goals through peaceful and structured means, achieving self-governance or autonomy could be feasible without resorting to violence.

He said, “The Biafrans are agitating for an Igbo nation. The agitation itself is not bad; it’s the way they are going about it that is not good. They are going about it using force and using intimidation, even killing one another. But if ethnic nationalities all meet and decide that the way to have peace is for each to have their own nations, why not?”

Okurounmu warned that Nigeria may become increasingly difficult to sustain as a unified entity if current challenges are not addressed.

He called for a fresh national conversation on the country’s future, stressing the need for inclusive dialogue among all ethnic nationalities. According to him, such discussions are necessary to determine a workable and peaceful path forward.

He said, “The country is becoming unsustainable as one nation if we continue with this structure without making the necessary adjustments. What we need now is a sincere and honest conversation among all the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria, so that we can decide on a framework that ensures peace, fairness and mutual respect. Without that, we risk deepening the divisions that already exist.”

While acknowledging that past attempts at restructuring have failed, Okurounmu insisted that the conversation must continue.

He concluded by urging political leaders and stakeholders to prioritise national unity and equity in addressing the country’s challenges, warning that failure to do so could have long-term consequences for Nigeria’s stability.