Connect with us

Column

Advocating for Reviving the 1960s Constitution Toward Creating a United Region of Nigeria

Published

2 years ago

on

As Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its national development, the administration under President Bola Tinubu has already made strides in addressing the country’s challenges and opportunities. Amidst calls for constitutional restructuring and regional autonomy, the proposal to revive the 1960s Constitution and form the United Region of Nigeria has emerged as a potential strategy for nation-building. This ambitious vision aims to foster greater unity, cooperation, and development among Nigeria’s diverse regions, drawing inspiration from the country’s historical foundations. In this context, the Tinubu administration can play a pivotal role in bringing this strategy to fruition and shaping a more inclusive and prosperous future for the nation.

Reviving the 1960s Constitution in developing Nigeria for the present and future is a bold and forward-thinking move. The Constitution of the 1960s was a document that sought to promote unity and diversity within the country and to ensure that the rights and freedoms of all Nigerians were protected. By reviving this Constitution, we can build on the foundation of unity and inclusivity that it provided, and adapt it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the modern world.
One of the key proposals for reviving the 1960s Constitution is the national forming of the country into the United Region of Nigeria. This proposal would involve reorganizing the country into a more cohesive and integrated entity, where different regions or states would have more autonomy and decision-making power, while still remaining united under a common framework. This would help to address some of the deep-rooted issues of marginalization, inequality, and ethnic tensions that have plagued the country for decades.
By forming the United Region of Nigeria, we can create a more equitable and inclusive society, where the different regions and ethnic groups feel a sense of ownership and participation in the development of the country. This could help to bridge the divide between the different regions and promote a sense of national unity and cohesion.
Furthermore, reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria could have a significant impact on the delivery of holistic dividends of democracy to all Nigerians. By decentralizing power and decision-making, we can ensure that the voices and needs of all Nigerians are heard and respected. This could lead to better governance, improved service delivery, and greater accountability from leaders at all levels.
Essentially, reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria is a proactive step towards building a better and more inclusive society for all Nigerians. By embracing the principles of unity, diversity, and decentralization, we can create a more cohesive and progressive nation that works for the benefit of all its citizens.
Intriguingly, advocating for the revival of the 1960s Constitution, the creation of a United Region of Nigeria, and the implementation of advanced nation-building strategies present a significant opportunity for economic well-being and value creation for all Nigerians. By revisiting the foundational principles of the 1960s Constitution, we can harness the strengths of our diverse regions and promote unity and cooperation. This approach can foster economic growth, attract investment, and create job opportunities for citizens across the country. Additionally, by embracing advanced nation-building strategies, we can build a more resilient and inclusive society that values innovation, education, and sustainable development, ultimately leading to improved living standards and prosperity for all Nigerians.
The economic well-being of reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria could be significant. By decentralizing power and decision-making, this proposal could create opportunities for economic growth and development at the regional level, which in turn could benefit the entire nation.
One of the key ways in which this proposal could enhance economic well-being is by promoting regional competitiveness and resource utilization. Each region in Nigeria has unique strengths and resources that could be harnessed for economic development. By giving regions more autonomy and control over their resources, they can leverage these assets to attract investment, create jobs, and stimulate growth.
Furthermore, the formation of the United Region of Nigeria could lead to greater inter-regional trade and cooperation. By breaking down barriers between regions and fostering collaboration, we can create a more dynamic and interconnected economy that benefits all Nigerians. This could lead to increased productivity, efficiency, and innovation, driving economic growth and prosperity.
Additionally, decentralization of power could lead to better governance and more responsive policymaking, which are essential for creating a conducive environment for businesses to thrive. With improved governance and accountability, we can create a level playing field for all businesses, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract investment both locally and internationally.
In terms of value-creation opportunities for all Nigerians, the formation of the United Region of Nigeria could lead to greater inclusivity and participation in decision-making processes. By giving regions more autonomy and control over their affairs, we can ensure that the needs and aspirations of all Nigerians are taken into account in the policymaking process. This could lead to the creation of policies and programs that reflect the diversity and priorities of the population, promoting social cohesion and inclusive growth.
Overall, reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria has the potential to drive economic growth, enhance regional competitiveness, and create opportunities for all Nigerians to participate in and benefit from the development of the country. It is a bold and forward-thinking proposal that could pave the way for a more inclusive, prosperous, and united Nigeria.
Examining global examples of nations that have adopted similar national strategies can offer valuable insights into the potential economic well-being and value-creation opportunities for Nigeria. Countries like Germany and South Korea have successfully implemented nation-building strategies that prioritize innovation, education, and sustainable development. Germany’s emphasis on advanced manufacturing and technology sectors has propelled its economy to become one of the strongest in Europe. Similarly, South Korea’s focus on education and investment in technology has led to rapid economic growth and the emergence of global industry leaders. By analyzing the available data and lessons learned from these nations, Nigeria can tailor its own national strategy to leverage its unique strengths and resources for the benefit of all citizens.
Undoubtedly, there are indeed examples of countries around the world that have decentralized power and decision-making processes, leading to economic growth and benefits for their citizens. One example is Germany, which operates under a federal system of government. Germany is divided into states (Länder), each with its own government and legislative powers. This decentralization of power has allowed for regional autonomy, innovation, and economic development.
Germany’s federal system has enabled states to tailor policies to their specific needs and priorities, leading to diverse approaches to economic development, education, healthcare, and other areas. This flexibility has contributed to Germany’s overall economic success, with different regions driving growth in various sectors based on their strengths and resources.
Another example is Switzerland, which operates under a system of direct democracy and federalism. Switzerland is divided into cantons, each with a high degree of autonomy in areas such as taxation, education, and healthcare. This decentralized system has contributed to Switzerland’s economic prosperity, innovation, and social cohesion.
These examples demonstrate that decentralization of power and decision-making processes can lead to economic growth, innovation, and benefits for all citizens. By empowering regions and local governments to make decisions that are best suited to their specific needs and resources, countries can create more inclusive and sustainable development strategies that reflect the diversity of their populations.
While there may not be direct data available to support the specific proposal of reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria, these examples highlight the potential benefits of decentralization and regional autonomy in driving economic growth and value creation opportunities for all citizens.
To bring about the successful implementation of a national strategy focused on economic well-being and values creation for all Nigerians, the current administration under Tinubu can take specific actions. Firstly, investing in key sectors such as technology, agriculture, and infrastructure will not only drive economic growth but also create job opportunities and improve living standards for citizens. Additionally, prioritizing education and skills development programs can ensure that the workforce is equipped to participate in a rapidly evolving global economy. Strengthening governance, promoting transparency, and fighting corruption are crucial steps to attract foreign investment, build trust with international partners, and foster a conducive business environment. Collaboration with industry stakeholders, civil society, and the public will be essential in crafting policies that address the diverse needs of the population and ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared equitably. By strategically implementing these measures, the Tinubu administration can pave the way for sustainable development and inclusive prosperity for all Nigerians.
For an immediate present and future attainments, Bola Tinubu’s administration could take the following steps to bring the proposed strategy of reviving the 1960s Constitution and forming the United Region of Nigeria to fruition as part of nation-building:
1. Constitutional Amendment: The administration could initiate a constitutional review process to amend the current constitution to reflect the proposed changes. This process would involve engaging with the National Assembly, state governments, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure broad support for the amendments.
2. Regional Integration: The administration could prioritize efforts to foster greater integration and cooperation among the regions of Nigeria. This could involve promoting economic partnerships, cultural exchanges, and collaborative projects to strengthen the bonds between different regions.
3. Resource Allocation: The administration could revisit the current system of resource allocation to ensure a fair distribution of resources among the regions. This could involve restructuring revenue-sharing arrangements and fiscal federalism to empower regional governments and promote local development.
4. Infrastructure Development: The administration could prioritize infrastructure development projects that connect different regions and enhance connectivity within the country. This could include investments in transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and digital connectivity to facilitate economic growth and social development.
5. Peacebuilding and Reconciliation: The administration could focus on addressing historical grievances and promoting reconciliation among different ethnic and regional groups in Nigeria. This could involve initiatives to promote dialogue, understanding, and healing to foster national unity and social cohesion.
In pursuing this strategy, the Tinubu administration would need to demonstrate strong leadership, effective governance, and a commitment to inclusive development. Building consensus, engaging with stakeholders, and promoting transparency and accountability would be essential for the success of these efforts.
In conclusion, the proposal to revive the 1960s Constitution and form the United Region of Nigeria represents a bold and transformative vision for the country’s future. As the Bola Tinubu administration continues its term, the implementation of this strategy requires a holistic approach that emphasizes constitutional reform, regional integration, resource allocation, infrastructure development, and peacebuilding. By fostering dialogue, building consensus, and demonstrating strong leadership, the administration can pave the way for a more united, prosperous, and harmonious Nigeria. As the nation embarks on this journey of nation-building, it is imperative to recognize the importance of inclusive governance, social cohesion, and sustainable development in shaping a brighter future for all Nigerians.

♦ Professor Ojo Emmanuel Ademola is a Nigerian Professor of Cyber Security and Information Technology Management, and holds a Chartered Manager Status, and by extension, Chartered Fellow (CMgr FCMI) by the highly Reputable Royal Chartered Management Institute.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Anthony Obi Ogbo

From Threats to Partnership: How Diplomacy Repositioned Nigeria in Washington

Published

3 weeks ago

on

January 13, 2026

By

“Nigeria reframed terrorism, corrected Washington’s lens, and secured cooperation —a  pure anatomy of diplomatic turnaround“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

Nigeria’s recent engagement of a United States–based lobbying firm under a reported $9 million contract was widely scrutinized, predictably misunderstood by some, and quietly effective. The objective was clear: to shape Washington’s understanding of Nigeria’s complex security challenges—particularly violence affecting Christian communities—within an accurate geopolitical, intelligence, and regional framework. Such engagements are not unusual. In fact, they are a routine and essential feature of modern international diplomacy, allowing governments to clarify policy positions, counter distorted narratives, and ensure that domestic security crises are not flattened into simplistic talking points for foreign consumption.

In an era where global perception can influence aid, sanctions, military cooperation, and diplomatic goodwill, strategic communication has become inseparable from national security. Nigeria’s decision to professionally engage Washington signaled an understanding that security today is fought not only on the battlefield but also in briefing rooms, policy memos, and diplomatic corridors.

Evidence suggests that this recalibration has begun to yield results. Just days ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged—belatedly—that Muslims are equally among the primary victims of ISIS terrorism. It was a striking rhetorical shift for a political figure who had long leaned on broad, inflammatory framing that blurred the distinction between extremist violence and religious identity. That admission did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed sustained pressure from global security analysts, regional experts, and Muslim leaders who have repeatedly challenged the false narrative that terrorism is rooted in faith rather than criminal ideology, geopolitical instability, and organized violence.

More importantly, the acknowledgment coincided with tangible policy movement. Trump-aligned U.S. security networks have quietly expanded counterterrorism cooperation with Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. This development underscores a pragmatic recognition that effective counterterrorism is not achieved through threats, isolation, or performative rhetoric, but through partnership, intelligence sharing, and regional capacity building.

This week, the United States delivered fresh military supplies to Nigeria to support ongoing security operations. The delivery followed recent U.S. air strikes against Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) targets, carried out at Nigeria’s formal request. While air strikes often attract public attention, the more consequential story lies beneath the surface: a shift toward coordinated intelligence operations, logistical support, and sustained military collaboration. This is not symbolic diplomacy. It is functional, operational alignment.

Contrast this moment with an earlier chapter in Nigeria–U.S. relations. During the Jonathan administration, Nigeria experienced significant difficulties in its diplomatic engagement with Washington. Rather than relying on seasoned foreign policy professionals, security strategists, and international communications experts, the government leaned heavily on local intermediaries and political loyalists to interpret and convey Nigeria’s position abroad. The result was a weakened diplomatic posture, fragmented messaging, and persistent misinterpretation of Nigeria’s internal security realities. Critical issues—ranging from Boko Haram’s evolution to regional insurgency dynamics—were often viewed through incomplete or distorted lenses.

That experience offered a lasting lesson: goodwill alone does not translate into influence. In global politics, perception must be managed as deliberately as policy. Strategic silence, amateur diplomacy, or reactive communication leaves a vacuum—one that is quickly filled by external narratives, advocacy groups, or political opportunists with their own agendas.

What has changed now is not merely tone, but method. Nigeria’s current approach reflects an understanding that diplomacy is not capitulation, and lobbying is not a sign of weakness. It is leverage. It is preparation. It is the disciplined articulation of national interest in a language that global power centers understand. By engaging professionally, Nigeria reframed its security narrative—not as a sectarian failure, but as a shared counterterrorism challenge that requires international coordination.

Even Donald Trump’s posture illustrates this transformation. A leader who once relied on threats, ultimatums, and rhetorical spectacle has now, through institutional channels, become part of a support framework working with regional actors to strengthen security and civilian protection. The shift is not ideological; it is a strategic move. And it reflects the enduring truth that diplomacy often succeeds where bluster fails.

In international politics, power is not only measured by firepower or economic weight, but by the ability to persuade, align, and sustain cooperation. Nigeria’s recent experience is a reminder that nations are not judged solely by their crises, but by how effectively they explain, manage, and confront them on the global stage. Diplomacy, when practiced with clarity and professionalism, does not dilute sovereignty—it reinforces it.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike

Published

1 month ago

on

December 28, 2025

By

“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.

But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.

This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.

No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated

The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.

What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.

Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.

A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.

Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.

This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.

Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Trump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory

Published

1 month ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.

But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.

Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.

History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.

Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:

  • First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
  • Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
  • Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
  • Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
  • Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.

These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.

Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.

It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.

Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.

Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?

First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.

Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.

Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.

Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.

Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.

Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.

If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.

Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending