Нигерия, страна, насчитывающая более 250 этнических групп, с 1960 года остается в ловушке кругового танца вокруг своей политической эволюции. Она действовала в рамках политической системы, навязанной колониальными хозяевами, и другой, заимствованной у Америки, и то, и другое не смогло объяснить многообразие ее этнических групп, культур и исторических суверенитетов. Результатом стали десятилетия нестабильности, недоверия, маргинализации, циклов политического доминирования, агитации и экономической деградации. Для достижения прочного мира, справедливости, функционального управления и экономического роста существуют убедительные аргументы в пользу реструктуризации системы, чтобы обеспечить коллегиальное президентство, состоящее из шести президентов, каждый из которых представляет одну из шести геополитических зон Нигерии, управляющих республикой одновременно. Тот же принцип должен применяться и на уровне штатов, где триумвират губернаторов представляет внутреннее разнообразие в каждом штате. 

Это видение, хотя и радикальное, опирается на глубокие колодцы доколониальной истории Нигерии, неудачи ее постколониальной государственности и настоятельную потребность в системе управления, которая отражала бы социальные и политические реалии сегодняшнего дня.

Это также модель, которая может предложить новый взгляд на управление в более широком регионе Африки к югу от Сахары.

Before the arrival of the British and the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorates in 1914, what is now known as Nigeria was a mosaic of sovereign nation-states. The Oyo Empire, Benin Kingdom, Sokoto Caliphate, Kanem-Bornu Empire, Efik city-states, Tiv confederations, Igbo republican clans, the collage of Ijaw nation states, and hundreds of other ethnic communities each had their governance systems, economies, and cultures. These entities traded, intermarried, formed alliances, and, when necessary, went to war. 

Importantly, those communities governed themselves. They developed institutions suited to their cultures and managed relations with neighbouring groups on terms they considered just and mutually beneficial. Sovereignty was neither centralised nor monopolised. It was dispersed, negotiated, and contextually rooted.

This pluralistic political arrangement, far from being chaotic, fostered an organic balance of power and social cohesion among diverse communities. Conflict, though present, was often resolved through established traditional mechanisms that preserved interethnic respect and autonomy.

The colonial intervention upended this delicate balance. By force and fiat, the British Crown subsumed all these sovereign entities under a centralised administration. The act of colonisation was not merely territorial—it was political. Sovereign communities lost their right to self-govern and were subjected to indirect rule or colonial bureaucracy, depending on regional convenience. 

Upon independence in 1960, the British handed Nigeria over to a political system that preserved the centralised structure but now vested power in three regional governments: Northern, Western, and Eastern regions. These regions were dominated by the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo majorities, respectively, effectively surrendering the sovereignty of the numerous minority ethnic groups to the regional majorities.

This imposed structure bred deep-seated resentment and resistance. It sowed the seeds of the Isaac Adaka Boro liberation movement, the Biafran War, interethnic mistrust, secessionist agitations, and coups. Although the creation of the Midwest Region in 1963—restoring the sovereignty of the ancient Benin Kingdom and neighbours—was a step toward redressing the imbalance, it was ultimately not enough to resolve the underlying injustice of minority domination.

Today, though Nigeria has 36 states and a federal structure, the central government remains overly powerful, and political power is often monopolised by a narrow elite, some with roots in the major ethnic blocs. The result is a federation in name but a unitary state in practice.

To heal the wounds of history and build a more inclusive and effective federation, Nigeria must adopt a collegiate presidency with six presidents—one from each of the six geopolitical zones: North-West, North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-East, and South-South. These presidents would govern collectively, making decisions through consensus or majority vote.

This model recognises the ethnic and cultural complexity of Nigeria and distributes power equitably. No single region would dominate the centre, and no group would feel alienated from national leadership. Each geopolitical zone would see itself represented at the highest level of governance, not as a token, but as an equal partner in the Nigerian project. 

Such an arrangement would also serve as a platform for interregional dialogue, cooperation, and negotiation—practices that were common in precolonial Nigeria but have been eroded by the zero-sum game of winner-takes-all politics. It would reduce the temperature of elections, mitigate the ethnicisation of politics, godfatherism, and promote national unity built on mutual respect.

This principle should be extended to the state level, with each state governed by three co-governors representing the main ethnic or cultural blocs within that state. Decisions would be taken collaboratively, and administrative responsibilities could be rotated or divided according to agreed arrangements.

For example, in a state like Benue, where the Tiv and Idoma are the major ethnic groups, a three-leader structure could ensure both groups have a meaningful stake in governance. In Lagos, such a model would ensure the rights and interests of indigenous communities like the Awori, Egun, and others are not drowned out by the metropolitan dominance of political elites. 

Such an arrangement would make governance more inclusive, reduce tensions among competing ethnic groups, and ensure that no community feels perpetually marginalised.

Importantly, it would also enhance the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of its diverse citizens.

Sceptics may argue that a six-headed presidency or a three-headed governorship would be cumbersome or inefficient. But complexity is not necessarily a vice in governance. Nigeria is already complex; the challenge is how to manage that complexity fairly.

The collegiate system would require a constitutional overhaul, a redefinition of executive power, and a new administrative culture rooted in consensus-building. This is not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. Efficiency must not be pursued at the expense of justice, equity, peace or economic development. The alternative—continuing with a system that concentrates power and breeds distrust—will only perpetuate instability, secessionist agitations, corruption, nepotism and poor governance.

The Nigerian experiment has implications far beyond its borders. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, many states were similarly cobbled together by colonial powers, grouping distinct nations and communities into artificial political entities. From Cameroon to the Democratic Republic of Congo, from Sudan to Rwanda, the legacy of centralisation and ethnic marginalisation continues to fuel conflict and dysfunction.

The collegiate presidency model, if successfully implemented in Nigeria, could serve as a template for rethinking governance across the continent. It offers a new way of organising power that honours historical pluralism while building modern institutions.

Such a model would challenge the myth of indivisible presidential authority and promote the idea of leadership as a shared responsibility. It would allow African states to move beyond the colonial template and create systems that reflect their unique histories, cultures, and social realities. 

Nigeria has for too long operated under a governance structure that fails to reflect its historical truths and sociopolitical complexities. The time has come to imagine a new future—one rooted in equity, pluralism, and shared sovereignty. A six-zone collegiate presidency at the federal level and a three-leader system at the state level would mark a bold and necessary departure from the flawed colonial legacy.

This new model of governance does not seek to divide the nation but to unite it on more just and sustainable terms. It acknowledges the past, addresses the failures of the present, and lays the groundwork for a more peaceful and prosperous future. In doing so, Nigeria could become a beacon for Sub-Saharan Africa, demonstrating that diversity is not a weakness to be managed but a strength to be institutionalised.

The Punch