
(L-R) Nnamdi Azikiwe, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. NMAA / SMITHSONIAN LAB. Photo illustration by Dami Mojid. / THE REPUBLIC.
THE MINISTRY OF MEMORIES
Is Nigeria Better Served with Parliamentary Governance?

(L-R) Nnamdi Azikiwe, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. NMAA / SMITHSONIAN LAB. Photo illustration by Dami Mojid. / THE REPUBLIC.
THE MINISTRY OF MEMORIES
Is Nigeria Better Served with Parliamentary Governance?
Nigerian legislators, mostly in the opposition, began a subtle campaign in 2023 seeking a return to a parliamentary form of governance last operated during the First Republic (1960 to 1966). There is no indication at this time that the government or the ruling party supports this, which is the most glaring difference between Nigeria and Togo, where a referendum held in March 2024 will lead to a return to parliamentary government. But in the wake of controversial polls and contentious policies by a powerful executive, Nigerians might consider if the country is better served by parliamentary leadership.
JOURNEY FROM PARLIAMENT TO PRESIDENCY
After Nigeria got independence in 1960, the country practised a parliamentary form of government until 1966. The head of government was Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, whose party was the major partner in the largest coalition in the Federal House of Representatives. The head of state was President Nnamdi Azikiwe, whose party was the junior coalition member. Similar to Togo before 1963, the president was formally elected after being nominated by parliament. As prime minister, Balewa was responsible for government policy and oversaw the appointment of key government officials and cabinet. He was also responsible for responding on behalf of the government in parliament. Azikiwe’s mostly ceremonial role was largely to represent the country abroad and to formally endorse policies put forward by the cabinet.
The parliamentary also operated a regional leadership system. Nigeria is currently divided into six geo-political zones and 36 states, but in the period after independence, the country was only divided into the northern, western, eastern and, later, the mid-west regions. Each region had a governor, who was ceremonial, and a premier who led government business in the regional House of Assembly, in a structure that mirrored federal governance. This structure was amplified by the fact that the major parties were dominated by particular ethnic groups tied to the different regions. The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was the major party in the Northern Region, the Action Group (AG) started as the major force in the Western Region and the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) formed the government in the Eastern Region. The successful 1960 coalition was between NPC and NCNC and, ahead of the 1965 elections, NPC formed a coalition with the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP), which was a splinter of AG, while NCNC joined AG to form the new opposition.
The issues and accusations of malpractice in the 1965 elections played a role in the eventual cessation of parliamentary democracy on 15 January 1966, following the first coup d’état. This led to 13 years of military regimes under generals J.T.U Aguiyi-Ironsi (1966), Yakubu Gowon (1966 to 1975), Murtala Muhammad (1975 to 1976) and Olusegun Obasanjo (1976 to 1979). By the time Nigeria returned to a democratic government, the agreed-upon recommendation by the drafters of the constitution and the constituent assembly was a change from the parliamentary style of governance to an ‘American-style’ presidential form, which took effect in 1979 and saw Shehu Shagari elected as the first president under this system.
In pushing to change style, several historical cases were made. The clashes between President Azikiwe and Prime Minister Balewa (now members of different coalitions) ahead of the 1964 elections were especially revisited. Azikiwe had called on Balewa to postpone the elections, but Balewa refused. When Azikiwe called a meeting of the governors and premiers of the regions to discuss the seeming irregularities ahead of the polls, the northern and western officials refused to attend and, during the meeting, Balewa announced that elections would still proceed as planned. After the results, which Balewa and his coalition won comfortably, Azikiwe refused to call him to form a government, which led to a stalemate. Another case was the role that the uncertainty and instability in the Western Region, owing to clashes between AG and NNDP, played in the October 1965 elections and the resulting state of emergency that preceded the January 1966 coup.
Based on these incidents, those who drafted the constitution may have felt the need for a strong central government, and a similarly strong leader, who could effectively guide the nation. Furthermore, the expectation was that the demands and checks of a presidential form of government would force parties to actively move beyond being dominated by ethnic sentiments. The 1979 constitution, and subsequent versions, called for political parties to be effectively present across all states of the federation. Finally, the constitutional provision requiring a president to be elected by a quarter of the vote in two-thirds of the states was also designed to ensure that a national leader could not come to power simply by the support of one zone or ethnic group, as was largely the case in the First Republic.
WHERE DOES NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY GO IN A PARLIAMENT?
The big question is what would a parliamentary form of government look like for a country trying to ensure a truly representative and impactful democracy? First, we can infer that there would be more parties involved in parliament, since smaller parties can target select seats to gain seats in power, with a resulting impact on how politics is conducted. Parliamentary government could see parties working more actively to ensure representation in politics. This could lead to a consolidation of party coalitions, resulting in either more protracted politicking or a more concerted effort to ensure different considerations are incorporated in governing.
Second, a parliamentary regime will have an impact on the way zonal and ethnic considerations on political groups work to varying degrees. Nigeria’s present establishment parties are fairly national in nature, to the extent that they field candidates in elections in every state, but other parties appear to be stronger in select parts of the country. An example would be the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), which has held the governorship in Anambra since 2006. This could lead to splinter parties working to control particular areas to use as leverage in larger parliamentary discourse.
In this case, legislation will be needed to ensure that parties catering to specific geographic, ethnic or religious sentiments are proscribed. This can help ensure that no single ‘group’ has superiority in the country, a sentiment that could be ascribed to the leadership of the First Republic. During that era, despite being the leader of the largest party in parliament, Ahmadu Bello opted to remain as premier of the northern region and send his deputy, Balewa, in his place as prime minister. This decision gave a lasting impression that the North’s development was more of a priority than the nation’s. Because leaders are keener on national leadership, this is likely to be averted but should also be watched.
But these assumptions are by no means guaranteed. For starters, considering the current difficult economy and a competitive voting structure, more parties might fold into larger established machines. We could also see similar ethnic considerations in party configurations, especially through the designation of ‘strongholds’. Already, even within a presidential administration, ethnic considerations are high in party consolidation of power: the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) has historically been the force in the South South, but saw the Labour Party (LP) seize dominance in the South East; while the All Progressives Congress (APC) has been stronger in South West, North East and North West, zonal ‘alliances’ which resulted in the 2023 election outcome. Finally, even if parliamentary structures provide for strong oppositions, the present leadership challenges of PDP and LP do not leave optimism that they can provide effective opposition in parliament.
Third, a parliamentary structure could lead to a more established format for government accountability and a set role for opposition parties. Parliamentary structures often incorporate ‘question time’, which allows for the leader of the government to engage with parliamentary members, often led by the leader of the largest opposition, to defend their policies and positions. This level of robust government interaction could also lead to stronger media engagement and help politicians refine their accountability to citizens. Furthermore, this also mandates stronger opposition structures, which would be visible by their ability to actively counter or push the government of the day through their actions and debates.
Another point to consider is the role that a judiciary could play, especially when the other two arms of government are fused into one. This could ensure that there is a stronger engagement and less of a ‘contestation’ between the two. Nothing would likely change regarding appointments and vetting, since legislators would already do that, but interpreting laws could become easier and straightforward if the drafters are also in essence the implementers.
shop the republic
-
‘Homecoming’ Print by Shalom Ojo
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page -
‘Kongi’s Harvest’ Print by Diana Ejaita.
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page -
‘Welcome to Venice’ Print by Sarah N. Kanu.
₦140,000.00 – ₦150,000.00 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page -
‘Women Are Different’ Print by Diana Ejaita
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page
shop the republic
-
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page
THE GENERATIONAL EXCHANGE
A major consideration would be the role that generational divides and political considerations play. There is an argument that recent elections have seen elder politicians seek the presidency despite Nigeria’s youthful population and the necessary vigour that the presidency entails. Both President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in their 70s, well past the country’s own retirement age of 65. While there is no case for age being a barrier to service, both Buhari and Tinubu have been well associated with extended medical breaks outside the country.
With each successive election, as new politicians assume roles in term-limited offices, there is a growing crop of older politicians who are now faced with the dire prospect of retiring or finding a way to continue seeking relevance and revenue. Most end up competing for national assembly positions, which are not term-limited, but some seek cabinet appointments. The more established ones remain perennial contenders for the presidency. Before being sworn in as president in 2023, Tinubu’s last government role was as Lagos State governor, which he vacated 16 years before. Similarly, before his last run for president, Atiku’s last role was vice-president, which he also left 16 years before in 2007. Other frontline candidates prove earlier points—Peter Obi’s last role was Anambra State governor, which he vacated in 2014, nine years before the election, while Rabiu Kwankwaso was a former governor, minister and senator who left his seat in 2019. It is expected that the coterie of candidates who will seek the presidency in 2027 and beyond will likely be candidates already established to Nigerians through their recent or former political roles.
These facts are not limited to Nigeria’s politics. After all, both recent United States’ presidents were elected in their 70s, but coupled with a country whose many cultures value seniority and experience, this can lead to a gerontocratic leadership structure. Again, this is not particularly negative, but the limiting nature means that it is difficult for the alternative to break through. This is why a parliamentary form of governance could provide two roles that allow different generations interact within governance. While older, established politicians can seek the presidency, parties can be encouraged and would likely end up nominating strong hands to serve as prime ministers. This arrangement can lead to well-run parties preparing pipelines for both prime ministers and presidents through the different roles on offer.
This could even help with expectations. With less vigour, and frankly, work, a ceremonial presidency, could essentially become a role for elder states-people who can provide the necessary calm when a political environment becomes heightened. It would also help with ensuring that there is another senior government figure above the expected partisan division and contestation that would come from a prime minister who is not just the leader of government, but also the leader of their party.
There is the question of whether this incentive—of the presidency being the crowning achievement of any politician’s career—can encourage staying beyond a couple of cycles. This is because, as Nigeria’s democracy matures, presently younger politicians may prefer to be prime ministers as opposed to a president. But the hope is that by that period, the political terrain is more driven by active collaboration, consensus and capacity as opposed to it being the next rank for long-term political work.
PARTY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
More so than in presidential governance, parliamentary governance comes with the possibility of party politics superseding the national interest. This can provide a case where prime ministers are easily removed because of intra-party divides or schisms. While this was not obtainable in the short-lived First Republic, perhaps owing to strong ethnic ties among the different major parties, this is feasible in a broader tent party structure. The impact could be deleterious for governance. An example can be found in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party led from 2010 to 2024. During this period, there were elections held in 2015, 2017 and 2019, but intra-party divisions led to the emergence of five prime ministers.
The UK Conservative Party example shows a case where a party’s internal disagreements can essentially disrupt and affect the government. But this example is more glaring because parties in the United Kingdom are often associated with clear ideological differences and positions, which makes defections rare and ensures that citizens are aware of the kind of policies a government would enact. As a result, such divisions are only present in the case of a fairly existential debate—such as membership of a regional bloc for example. But Nigerian parties are not inherently associated with such ideological positions. This accounts for the ease with which politicians defect across parties. A case in point was the 2023 general elections, where the ruling APC was led by a national chairman, Abdullahi Adamu, and a national secretary, lyiola Omisore, who had previously been elected to offices under the platform of the opposition, PDP. This might mean that these parties are less likely to have such splinters because of simply being election vehicles but, as earlier alluded to, if governing coalitions are the norm, then it is likely that these debates will persist. Furthermore, even if the debates are not necessarily ideological in nature, there could be a strong disagreement in terms of what and where the government prioritizes in executing policies or allocating budgetary resources to.
This would also be the case if a president and prime minister emerge from the same party or coalition and if there are disagreements. As stated earlier, NPC and NCNC formed a coalition after the 1959 elections, with NPC producing the prime minister in Balewa and NCNC producing the president in Azikiwe. However, over the course of the term, the two parties fell out and a splinter group in the western region provided NPC with a potential coalition partner. This led to a reformation of the alliances ahead of the 1964 elections, which saw NPC and NNDP win a majority, and NCNC and AG in opposition. The convention demanded that the president formally call the prime minister to form a government, but Azikiwe refrained from doing so till he was prevailed upon by different groups to invite Balewa in the interest of the country. There is a direct line between the incidents of the 1965 elections and the coups of January and July 1966.
Internal party dynamics have always had an impact on eventual party positions, but these have often been constrained to election efforts—such as the defection of the governors of Adamawa, Kano, Kwara, Rivers and Sokoto from PDP to APC in 2015 and the insistence from the governors of Abia, Benue, Enugu, Oyo and Rivers that a southerner must become president in 2023. But in a parliamentary form of government, where parties take on a larger responsibility since the leader of the government is essentially the leader of the party, these could play a role in either disrupting governance or further entrenching a partisan divide. It also means that whoever is overseeing the government, and by extension running the country, will be constantly at the whims of potentially volatile extremists in their party.
Essentially, parliamentary governance will require stronger and more effective party management. The concern, if this is implemented soon, is that this has not necessarily been the case in recent years.
shop the republic
shop the republic
SUB-NATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Yet perhaps the most important factor to note is the likely disruption to the existing federal form of government that this will cause. The last time Nigeria carried out a parliamentary form of government, the different sub-national units were regions that had formed administrative constituencies during the colonial period. As stated earlier, each region had a governor, who was the ‘head of territory’ and a premier, who was essentially the ‘head of government’. But returning to parliament will lead to some existential questions that have long been avoided in Nigerian politics.
Nigeria’s states have solely been created at the behest of military regimes for the purpose of creating more segmented administrative clusters or to address claims of marginalization by smaller minority groups. Because there has been no clear and intentional approach to these divisions, states have often been intentionally created to encourage further homogeneity and less to ensure structured revenue streams. Most states are unable to develop internally generated revenue to handle basic investment and government policies, and this also goes beyond their work in managing general investment projects. Parliamentary form of government has historically worked on centralizing power, which will lead to a rearrangement of expectations and the need to ensure that parliamentarians are strengthened to play a strong connecting role between citizens and government. Local government councils could also become another alternative and, without overbearing state governments, could become empowered to do more of their necessary work.
In terms of practicality, it will then require a duplication of roles. Premiers will need to handle government business, through their representation in state houses of assembly, while governors will now be in a position of ceremonial administration. Both positions are not required, but even leaving ceremonial governors half as influential as they are now could weaken a central parliamentary government. The result could be a strong deterrent for parliamentary governance, a complex situation around how to extricate Nigeria from a federal to a unitary form of government.
It is also another existential debate: which way is the best for a country with many different ethnicities and identitarian cleavages to engage and interact? Proponents of presidential governance no doubt allude to the fact that the different sub-national constituents are able to maintain laws that ensure their identities are maintained and embrace their shared heritage. But the challenge here is that this creates a nation of states and not necessarily a nation-state. On the flip side, a parliamentary form of government could easily see a majority group dominate discourse since all they’ll need are the votes to ensure their victory.
Beyond the agitation for a return to parliamentary governance, there are some major issues that are unlikely to change if there is no clear political will to do so. The cost of governance will require concerted efforts to trim political staff and remove the duplication of roles across government agencies and even between political aides and civil servants. There will still need to be a clear and transparent process concerning census taking, an issue that has plagued Nigeria for decades, to ensure that constituency apportions are fair and beyond political scheming. There will be a conversation on how to delegate the roles and powers of parliament to state levels, which could see a return of separated premiers and governors, but could be even more convoluted, difficult to manage and see even more clashes over resources and power trade-offs. Citizens will need to be carried along to make sure that a constitutional amendment, needed for such a conversion, is truly representative of the national sentiment. There will also be necessary sensitization efforts to ensure everyone is aware of any changes and how they will upend decades of conventional political wisdom—and education. Finally, regardless of the form of governance, elections themselves must be free and fair to ensure that any leader is truly elected with the mandate to serve.
Nigerians would do well to review the processes around how leaders emerge and are empowered. There is space for targeted advocacy around the first-past-the-post electoral structure, which means candidates who barely appeal to the majority of their constituents are elected. There is definitely a question about reducing the cost of governance and ensuring a more impactful and representative leadership. If a return to parliamentary government is the decision, it is only just part of a wider series of questions that could change governance in Nigeria as we know it⎈
shop the republic
BUY THE MAGAZINE AND/OR THE COVER
-
The Republic V8, N3 The Enduring Voice of Wole Soyinka
₦24,000.00 Buy Now -
‘Kongi’s Harvest’ Print by Diana Ejaita.
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00 Select options This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page