Unity In School, Disunity In Nigeria: What Went Wrong?

A PAPER PRESENTED BY PROFESSOR ABIODUN AMUDA-KANNIKE SAN, FCArb, FCE, LFWLS, FCIAP, FIIHP, ACTI, ACSP, JP; AG DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (DLSS) OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES (NILDS) ABUJA, AND PIONEER DEAN, FACULTY OF LAW, KWARA STATE UNIVERSITY MALETE, FOR THE OKENE SECONDARY SCHOOL OLD STUDENTS ASSOCIATION WHICH TOOK PLACE AT PETER AKINOLA GUEST HOUSE, BEHIND BISHOP SMITH COLLEGE, ALONG ADMIRALTY ROAD, OPPOSITE AIR FORCE BASE, ILORIN, KWARA STATE ON FRIDAY, 26TH JUNE, 2026 TO SUNDAY, 28TH JUNE, 2026.

Abstract

This paper examines a central paradox in Nigerian national life: young Nigerians from diverse ethnic, religious, and regional backgrounds coexist harmoniously within secondary schools and the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), yet upon graduation into “Nigeria” proper, these same individuals fragment into competing ethnic and sectional blocs. Drawing on historical analysis, constitutional examination, and case studies of key events including the 1966 coup, the 2011 post-election violence, and the #EndSARS protests of 2020, the paper argues that post-school disunity is not cultural but structural. Schools and the NYSC create artificial conditions for unity (controlled environments, shared goals, meritocratic evaluation, absence of resource competition, and common adversaries) that the Nigerian state fails to replicate after graduation. When those conditions disappear, primordial interests, reinforced by constitutional provisions such as the Federal Character Principle take over. The paper concludes by proposing legal and institutional reforms that would replicate school conditions in national life, including replacing “state of origin” with “state of residence,” extending the NYSC model to governance, and penalizing ethnic incitement by public officials.

Keywords: Nigeria, national unity, federal character, ethnic politics, constitutional reform, resource control

1. INTRODUCTION: THE PARADOX

Walk into any Nigerian secondary school or NYSC camp. You will see Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Tiv, and Ijaw teenagers eating from the same plate, speaking pidgin, and defending each other in fights. Graduate them into “Nigeria,” and the same people become “northerners,” “southerners,” “Christians,” “Muslims,” advocates of “our oil,” and proponents of “their turn.”

This paradox demands explanation. Why does unity thrive in structured youth institutions but collapse in national life? What went wrong? Nigeria’s post-school disunity is not cultural. It is structural. Schools and the NYSC create artificial conditions for unity that the Nigerian state fails to replicate after graduation. When those conditions disappear, primordial interests reinforced by politics, economics, and constitutional law take over.

The paper is divided into six parts. The first part introduce the central thesis and the aim of the paper followed by an analyses of the mechanisms that produce unity within schools. The third section interrogates the structural failures that dissolve this unity after graduation. This is followed by historical case studies of the 1966 coup, the 2011 post-election violence, and the #EndSARS protests that illustrate how ethnic differences are reignited. The paper also situates the Federal Character debate within theoretical frameworks of justice, equality, and national unity. The last two sections proffer recommendations with implications for constitutional reform and, lastly, a conclusion.

2.1 THE “UNITY” WE EXPERIENCED IN SCHOOL

Within Nigerian schools and the NYSC, institutional design forces cooperation.[1] Everyone wears the same uniform, follows the same timetable, and writes the same West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) examinations. Tribal identity and ethnic affiliation does not determine success. As one observer notes, “You need your Igbo roommate to cover for you during prep. You need your Yoruba lab partner to pass Chemistry.” This is not voluntary unity born of affection; it is what sociologists call “social engineering.” The institution forces interest balancing, and group harmony becomes a condition of individual survival.

The critical feature of school-level interaction is the suspension of what might be called “identity privilege.” No governor’s son receives 50 marks without earning them. The son of a farmer and the son of a senator sit the same examination under identical conditions. In this environment, merit becomes the currency, not ethnicity.[2] The socially engineered unity stands in stark contrast with the larger Nigerian society, where the currency becomes “quota,” “federal character,” “state of origin,” and “catchment area.” The student who learns that hard work wins is systematically disabused of this lesson upon graduation.

Within schools, the “national cake” is not being shared. There is no oil block to allocate, no presidency to contest, no Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) job to fight over. Conflicts, when they arise, concern who took whose bucket, not who owns the land or controls revenue allocation. This absence of zero-sum resource competition is important to the unity we experienced in school. As will be subsequently discussed, the structure of Nigerian fiscal federalism transforms every election and every appointment into an ethnic arithmetic problem.[3] Schools escape this dynamic entirely.

As nothing unites people like a shared oppressor, students from different ethnic backgrounds who might otherwise be indifferent or hostile to one another discover solidarity in confronting the principal, the bullying senior, or the NYSC drill instructor as what might be called a “common adversary.” This perhaps explains the unity we have in schools. The tragedy is that once Nigerians graduate, the oppressor becomes the other ethnic group.

2.2 FAILURE OF NATION-BUILDING INSTITUTIONS POST-NYSC

The NYSC lasts one year after which there is no national institution that forces meaningful cross-ethnic interaction. The contrast with other multi-ethnic societies is instructive. The United States has national media, professional sports leagues, and a military draft (historically) that bring citizens from different regions into sustained contact. Therefore, it is possible for one to live sixty years in Nigeria and never meet someone from another region again. As one Nigerian professor recently argued, “The National Youth Service has not increased national unity nor reduced the perceived differences among the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. Nigeria is more divided today than ever.[4]

The disappearance of compulsory cross-ethnic interaction after the NYSC means that the habits of cooperation formed in school atrophy. In their place, individuals retreat to ethnic networks that provide social capital, economic opportunity, and physical security in a state that provides none of these reliably.[5]

3.1 WHAT WENT WRONG AFTER SCHOOL AND NYSC: FIVE STRUCTURAL FAILURES

Outside schools, the stakes are enormous with billions of dollars in oil revenue, control of revenue generating agencies, contracts, appointments, and access to state resources to compete for. Since the formal rules to allocate these resources partly involve ethnic basis, it is rational for individuals to mobilize ethnically. The problem is not that Nigerians are “tribalistic.” The problem is that the structure of post-school Nigeria rewards tribalistic behaviour.

As one scholar put it, “Schools unite because of shared scarcity. Nigeria must create shared prosperity projects where ethnic groups literally succeed or fail together.[6] The absence of such shared economic projects means that resource competition will continue to map onto ethnic identity.[7]

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria mandates representation based on state and ethnicity, not competence. Section 14(3) provides that “the composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty.[8]

After school, an individual’s state of origin matters more than their WAEC results. A student with nine distinctions can lose a job or university admission to someone with four credits “because it’s their slot.” The Federal Character Principle (FCP), subsuming proportional representation and preferential treatment, aims at equality in political participation and access to social benefits on a territorial basis.[9]

This disillusionment breeds ethnic loyalty as a form of protection. As one scholar has argued, the Federal Character Principle, while intended to address historical marginalization, has produced what might be called a “perverse incentive”.[10] Individuals have reason to emphasize ethnic identity over individual merit because of the formal structure of opportunity rewards system based on ethnic identity.⁷

3.2 RESOURCE POLITICS REPLACES CLASSROOM COOPERATION

Nigeria’s politics did not grow organically from nation-building. They grew from colonial revenue-sharing.[11] Since independence in 1960, and particularly since the oil boom of the 1970s, politics has been primarily about sharing oil revenues, not building schools or infrastructure.[12] Overtime, this politics of resource sharing and control has been perfected and uplifted to a constitutional principle in the name of federal character principle. First adopted in the 1979 constitution and retained under the 1999 Constitution, the federal character principle mandates that the composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty.[13]

Similarly, the constitution provides for all revenues accruing to the Federation be paid into a Federation Account and distributed among the federal, state, and local governments according to allocation principles determined by the National Assembly.[14] The constitutional logic is straightforward. Oil and gas revenues generated from resources vested in the Federation by Section 44(3) belong to all Nigerians and should therefore be subject to constitutional allocation formulas, legislative appropriation, and public oversight.[15]

Consequently, every election becomes an exercise in ethnic arithmetic. Nigerian graduates from different ethnic nationalities who studied under the same conditions and even unite at different phases of Nigeria’s history to confront the colonial administration, military regimes, or unpopular University leadership suddenly become rivals.[16] Each ethnic group believes the other “dominates” the sharing formula, control the military, or operates gatekeeping policies to sensitive sectors of the Nigerian economy.[17] The constitutional “derivation principle” which allocates a percentage of oil revenues to oil-producing states becomes an ethnic claim rather than a fiscal one.[18] Resource competition replaces classroom cooperation. Unlike schools, where there is no “national cake” to fight over, post-school Nigeria is organized entirely around its distribution. This is a recipe for permanent ethnic tension.

3.3 ELITE MANIPULATION OF IDENTITY: A MARXIST VIEW

The failure of the Nigerian governance and political structure to socially engineer national unity and dissolve ethnic rivalry is associated with the needs of the ruling class for perpetual division among the people to establish and consolidate their rule.[19] It has been argued that ethnicity in Nigeria is not a primordial given but a political resource manipulated by elites for competitive advantage.[20]

Nigeria’s past heroes Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Nnamdi Azikiwe were united only when facing colonialists. After independence, these same elites discovered that ethnicity wins votes more reliably than policy platforms.[21] Even today, this approach still does the trick. Politicians from every tribe send their children to school together in London but tell gullible voters that “your tribe is under attack” just to win elections. Ethnic identity becomes a tool of the ruling class to exploit to their gains. The Constitution’s federal character and revenue allocation provisions, whatever their original justification, are deployed by elites to mobilize ethnic constituencies against one another. This is not a failure of the Constitution. It is, from a Marxist perspective, its function.[22]

4. CASE STUDIES

4.1 HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT CONDITIONED ETHNIC TENSION AND RIVALRY IN NIGERIA

Several literatures abound explaining why the Nigerian nation is an artificial construct that is necessarily doomed to fail.[23] However, prior to the advent of colonialism and the artificial construction of the Nigerian State, the diverse ethnic nationalities have interacted among themselves both socially, commercially and politically.[24] There were trade relationships, intermarriages and defence pacts between pre – colonial ethnic nations that have laid the background upon which the Nigerian nation was to be built.[25] Genuine optimism for the future of the new Nigerian State trailed the attainment of independence in 1960. The optimism for a future full of possibilities but never one where there will be a Nigerian as there is an English, for example. African ethnic nationalities take great pride in their cultural identity to ever abandon it for assimilation into any other ethnic identity.[26] Rather, the optimism reflects the genuine commitment to creating a country for the richly diverse ethnic groups in Nigeria. It started so well until certain events that possibly change the course of Nigeria’s trajectory forever.

4.2 THE 1966 COUP: THE STRIKE AT THE CENTRE

Officers who staged the January 1966 coup had been best men at each other’s weddings at Sandhurst. The Nigerian military was a genuinely integrated institution where professional bonds transcended ethnic identity.[27] The military remains one of the institutions with national coloration and pride. Without detailed consideration of the background to the coup, the coup was interpreted as an “Igbo coup” because most of the coup plotters (though not all) were of Igbo origin.[28] Furthermore, most of the victims of the coup who lost their lives were essentially political and military leaders from the North and few others from the West. Furthermore, the biggest beneficiary of the coup, Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, who took power, was Igbo.[29] The actions of General Aguiyi – Ironsi exacerbated ethnic coloration for the coup. The ethnic interpretation of motives replaced professional military cohesion.[30]

The army which had been one of Nigeria’s most integrated institutions disintegrated along ethnic lines within months. The January 1960 coup led to the counter-coup of July 1966 which was also framed as a “Northern reaction.”[31] This laid the foundation for the Biafran War (1967-1970), in which an estimated one to three million Nigerians died, mostly from starvation. The structural conditions for unity within the military (shared training, professional norms, common adversary in colonial rule) were not backed by any broader national framework for managing ethnic competition. When crisis came, officers reverted to ethnic loyalty as the only reliable form of protection.[32] This explains the choices of Military Chiefs by successive Nigerian Heads of States favouring ethnic sensibilities, trust, and loyalty.

4.3 THE 2011 POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE

Before the 2011 post – election violence, NYSC members from all regions taught together in schools across the country. Many had formed cross-ethnic friendships and professional networks during their service year. The April 2011 presidential election pitted incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan (a Christian from the South-South) against former military head of state Muhammadu Buhari (a Muslim from the North). When Jonathan won, violence erupted in northern states, with estimates of at least eight hundred to one thousand killed.[33] Corps members were specifically targeted and killed in some locations.

President Jonathan established a twenty-two-member committee chaired by Sheikh Ahmed Lemu, a retired Grand Khadi , to investigate the violence. The committee identified several root causes the detailed consideration of which is not needed here. Importantly, the violence destroyed the trust that NYSC had built. Corps members from southern Nigeria became reluctant to serve in northern states. The election was framed by politicians and ordinary citizens alike as a “North vs. South” contest, and the killing of corps members permanently damaged the NYSC’s nation-building mission.

The NYSC’s one-year intervention though insufficient to attain its objective of creating lasting cross-ethnic solidarity was truncated by political competition framed in ethnic terms. Political competition dynamics reinforced by zoning and rotation arrangements that treat the Presidency as an ethnic rotation collapsed the bonds formed in school. The absence of any ongoing national institution to sustain these bonds meant that they could not survive a single violent election cycle.

4.4 THE #ENDSARS PROTESTS (2020)

The #EndSARS movement began as a pan-ethnic youth coalition against police brutality, specifically targeting the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), a police unit accused of widespread extortion, torture, and extrajudicial killings. The protesters were a tribe of Nigerian citizens disenchanted with the apparent drift and hopelessness in the land constituting a representative sample of all ethnic groups, all states, and all regions of Nigeria.[34] Signs of cross-ethnic solidarity were remarkable. On Friday, October 16, 2020, non-Muslim protesters formed a human shield around Muslim worshippers praying at the Lekki Toll Plaza in Lagos. Christian worshippers had their turn on Sunday, October 18.[35]

On the evening of October 20, 2020, soldiers were said to open fire on protesters at the Lekki Toll Plaza. The precise number of casualties remains disputed, but the attack transformed the protest movement. In the ensuing chaos, what had been peaceful protests gave way to widespread destruction of property, including the burning of police stations, government buildings, and private property.[36]

In the aftermath, government officials and political elites engaged in ethnic profiling of the protesters and the “hoodlums” who allegedly hijacked the protests. Allegations circulated that the violence was predominantly the work of one ethnic group. The pan-ethnic coalition that characterized the early #EndSARS movement fragmented. Some ethnic groups were blamed for the destruction; others withdrew from cross-ethnic solidarity in response to threats. The government’s response which included a shutdown of internet services in Lagos and other states further broke the coalition. The #EndSARS case illustrates the fragility of unity that is not institutionalized. The protesters shared a common grievance (police brutality) and a common adversary (the SARS unit and, increasingly, the state). But when the state responded with violence and then deployed ethnic narratives to explain the protests, the coalition could not hold. Without legal protections for cross-ethnic organizing and without ongoing institutions that reward inter-ethnic cooperation, unity built on a single issue dissolves when that issue is no longer salient.[37]

5.1 THE FEDERAL CHARACTER DEBATE: JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND NATIONAL UNITY

The FCP is not entirely being viewed as destructive to the unity of Nigeria. The principle is conceived, designed, and adopted in the 1979 Constitution as a mechanism to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty. The proponents of the principle advance three main arguments for its constitutional adoption and continuous retention.

First, drawing on John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, advocates argue that fair equality of opportunity requires correcting historical marginalization.[38] In a society where certain ethnic groups were systematically excluded from education, employment, and political power during colonialism and after independence, formal equality, by treating everyone the same, merely perpetuates existing inequalities. The FCP is therefore a substantive, not merely formal, commitment to justice.[39]

Second, national unity is the symbolic function of inclusion. Ensuring ethnic representation strengthens national unity and trust both of which are essential to national unity and political stability. The relative stability of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999-present) compared to the First Republic (1960-1966), which collapsed into civil war, is attributed in part to the federal character arrangements that ensure no ethnic group feels permanently excluded from power.[40]

Thirdly, pure meritocracy in deeply heterogeneous societies can entrench majority privilege. If government jobs and university admissions were allocated solely based on competitive examination, ethnic groups with historically better educational infrastructure would dominate permanently, creating resentment and instability that would be worse for everyone, including the initially privileged groups.[41] The FCP is therefore a “second-best” solution to a problem that has no first-best solution.

Nonetheless, these arguments are countered by critics. From a liberal individualist perspective, justice requires rewarding individual effort and talent, not group identity. The FCP violates this principle by prioritising ethnicity and state of origin considerations over which the individual has no control and which should be irrelevant to their qualifications. This is, properly understood, a form of discrimination which every democratic society abhors.[42]

Critics also argued that national unity can only be built and sustained through competence. An inefficient state cannot command loyalty. When unqualified appointees fail at their jobs, they do not advance national unity. Rather, they reinforce ethnic stereotypes and create new grievances.[43] A citizen who receives poor service from an incompetent officer appointed simply based on tribal considerations does not become more committed to Nigerian unity; he become more committed to his ethnic self-reliance.

Most dangerously, the FCP perpetuates identity politics. Rather than fading over time, ethnicity becomes permanently salient because jobs, admissions, and promotions depend on it. The FCP creates what economists call a “moral hazard”.[44] Individuals have no incentive to downplay ethnic identity because the formal structure of opportunity rewards emphasizing it. The goal of a truly integrated Nigeria where ethnicity is no more politically relevant than ones colour of the hat, recedes rather than advances.[45]

5.2 THEORETICAL INTEGRATION AND SITUATED ANALYSIS

These competing positions of both the proponents and opponents falls short of providing the adequate theoretical justification. This paper suggests a middle position.

The FCP was a reasonable response to a real problem. The First Republic collapsed in part because of real fear of domination of the civil service and military by one ethnic group over the whole nation.[46] Therefore, some mechanism for ensuring ethnic representation, even if temporarily, was necessary for any stable Nigerian state.

However, the FCP as currently structured creates perverse incentives that undermine its own goals. Schools succeed because they ignore federal character during examinations. Nigeria fails because federal character replaces merit after graduation. The empirical pattern is clear. Unity thrives where identity is irrelevant such as the classroom. Conversely, disunity thrives where identity determines access to jobs, or political appointments.

The path for reform is to retain the substantive goal of ethnic inclusion but to strengthen the mechanism for implementation to reflect the metrics of competence, integrity and excellence beyond mere ethnic identity. Such a reform would preserve representation for historically marginalized groups while gradually reducing the political salience of ethnicity. This must be followed with the systematic abandonment of the “state of origin” (an ascriptive, permanent category) to “state of residence” (a choice-based, fluid category). An individual who has lived in a State for fifteen years contributing to its economy and society should count as an “indigene” for purposes of federal character not because they have abandoned their original ethnic identity, but because the state’s goal of inclusion should be territorial, not genealogical.

6. REPLICATING SCHOOL CONDITIONS IN NATIONAL LIFE

To replicate the school’s condition that has socially engineered unity among individuals from different ethnic nationalities, the followings are suggested:

1. Redefine Citizenship: Remove “State of Origin”

The most immediate reform to facilitate replicating school conditions of unity in national life is to redefine “state of origin” to include residency for a specified period of years. An individual that has lived in a State, say for ten years, should be treated as an indigene of that State. The FCP serves a unifying purpose. The central misgivings of Nigerians is the restrictive manner in which the principle has been applied. The CFRN provides that federal character principles shall not preclude the appointment of a person to any office provided the person possesses the appropriate qualifications for that office.[47]

The suggested reform would align law with lived reality. It would preserve regional representation while dissolving the political salience of ascriptive ethnic identity. Individuals would have reason to identify with the states where they actually live and work, not the states of their great-grandparents.

2. Economic Unity Before Political Unity

Schools unite through shared scarcity and shared projects. Nigeria must create shared prosperity projects where ethnic groups succeed or fail together. For example, a regional rail network linking northern agricultural production to southern ports. Because the rail moves goods in both directions, no group can afford to sabotage the system. The shared infrastructure creates shared interests.[48] Economic interdependence reduces the zero-sum perception that characterizes Nigerian fiscal federalism. When your prosperity depends on my prosperity, ethnic mobilization becomes less attractive.

3. Extend the NYSC Model to Governance

The NYSC’s one-year intervention is too short to create lasting cross-ethnic solidarity. The model should be extended to elite governance positions. This could be through mandatory federal civil service transfers across states forcing elite interaction beyond the one-year NYSC period. When elites learn to work across ethnic lines, as students do in school, they become less likely to mobilize ethnic sentiment for electoral gain as the habits of cooperation become the prevailing norms.

4. Punish Elite Ethnic Entrepreneurship

In school, preaching tribalism gets you suspended. Nigeria should apply the same rule to governors, senators, and religious leaders. Treating ethnic incitement by public officials through speeches that incites ethnic violence or makes ethnic claims on state resources does not necessarily constitutes a derogation from the right to freedom of speech. It is justifiable in any democratic regime to restrict the individual right of freedom of expression to safeguard and preserve public order. The CFRN permits such restrictions in the interest of public order.[49]

When political elites face real consequences for ethnic mobilization, they will stop mobilizing ethnically. The structural incentives that currently reward ethnic politics would be partially offset by legal disincentives.

7.1 CONCLUSION WE WERE NEVER REALLY UNITED: BUT WE CAN BE

The unity that Nigerians experience in school is real, but it is unity under compulsion and scarcity. Students cooperate because the institution forces them to cooperate; there is no alternative. Nigeria after school requires unity by choice and Nigerians have chosen poorly because their laws and politics reward division. From a natural law perspective, a state that teaches unity in its schools but practices disunity in its laws is an unjust state. The CFRN being a positive law conflicts with this natural law requirements of a just political community.

From a legal positivist perspective, the response is that the Constitution is the supreme law and that the solution is not to lament the law but to debate its functionality given the living realities and change it when found to serve no function.[50]

This paper has argued using the positivist’s method to attain the natural law’s goal. The Constitution can be amended. Until it is, Nigeria will continue to graduate students from unity into disunity. When Nigeria’s institutions outside school mimic the meritocracy, shared goals, and common rules that exist inside schools, Nigerians will stop asking “what went wrong” and start asking “how did we finally get it right?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). [Sections 1(3), 4, 14(3)-(4), 44(3), 147(3), 162, 171(5), 192(2), 197(2)]
2. National Youth Service Corps Act, Cap. N84, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Secondary Sources (Books)

1. Dudley, B. J. (1982). An Introduction to Nigerian Government and Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2. Falola, T., & Heaton, M. M. (2008). A History of Nigeria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Nnoli, O. (1978). Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
4. Panter-Brick, S. K. (Ed.). (1970). Nigerian Politics and Military Rule: Prelude to the Civil War. London: University of London, Athlone Press.

Secondary Sources (Journal Articles and Book Chapters)

1. Aluko, H. A., Aluko, A., & Ogunjimi, F. (2022). Democracy and Administration of Social Justice in Nigeria: A Critical Assessment of the Fourth Republic. Open Journal of Political Science, 12, 181-194.
2. Luckham, A. R. (1970). The Nigerian Military: Disintegration or Integration? In S. K. Panter-Brick (Ed.), Nigerian Politics and Military Rule: Prelude to the Civil War. London: Athlone Press.
3. Nkume-Okorie, N. O. (2014). Rotation and Zoning: Extra-constitutional Frameworks for Nigeria’s Political Stability. Africa in Focus.

Reports and Official Documents

1. Lemu, S. A., & Committee on the 2011 Election Violence and Civil Disturbances. (2011). Report of the Presidential Committee on the 2011 Election Violence and Civil Disturbances. Abuja: Federal Government of Nigeria.

News and Commentary

1. Adetiloye, P. (2025, February 10). NYSC has outlived purpose, scrap it now, Don tells FG. The Guardian (Nigeria).
2. Isiekwene, P. (2020, October 25). Protesters, hoodlums and their tribes. TheCable.
3. Financial Nigeria. (2026, March 11). Executive Order 9 and its legal crisis. Financial Nigeria.

Theoretical Works

1. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[1] Achiaku Fanem, ‘National Youth Service Corps and Education in Nigeria’ (2021) accessed from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354142662_National_Youth_Service_Corps_and_Education_in_Nigeria> on 26 April 2026at 2: 50PM.

[2] Allan Johnson, ‘Privilege, Power, Difference, and Us’ in Michael S Kimmel and Abby L Ferber (eds) Understanding Privilege: A Reader (Routledge New York 2017).

[3] Abubakar Idris Hassan,  and Ogag Musa Ari, ‘Fiscal Federalism and Resource Control in Nigeria’ Zamfara Journal of Politics and Development (2023) (4) (1).

[4] Ayodele Afolabi, ‘NYSC has Outlived Purpose, Scrap it Now, Don tells FG’ The Guardian Online News of 10 February 2026 accessed from <https://guardian.ng/news/nysc-has-outlived-purpose-scrap-it-now-don-tells-fg/> on 26 April 2026 at 3:09PM.

[5] Rosemary Anazodo, Tina Uchenna Agbionu, Ezenwile Uche, ‘Parochial Political Culture: The Bane of Nigeria Development’ Review of Public Administration & Management (2012) (1) (2).

[6] Akinwumi Adesina, ‘Building a New Nigeria: Imperatives for Shared Prosperity’ Daily Trust Online News of 13 July 2021 accessed from <https://dailytrust.com/building-a-new-nigeria-imperatives-for-shared-prosperity-2/> on 26 April 2026 at 3:20PM.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, section 14 (3).

[9] Understanding Federal Character Principle in Nigeria (2023) accessed from <https://www.stears.co/article/understanding-federal-character-principle-in-nigeria/> on 26 April 2026.

[10] Ran Ran, ‘Perverse Incentive Structure and Policy Implementation Gap in China’s Local Environmental Politics’ Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning (15) (1).

[11] Shujian Wang, ‘On the Profound Impact of Nigeria’s Oil Boom on Politics and Economy (1973 – 1979)’ in Guang Yang, Jing Zhang, Xinghan Xiong, and Lanyu Liu, (eds) Risks Resilience and Interdependency (Palgrave Macmillan 2025).

[12] Ibid.

[13] CFRN, Section 14 (3).

[14] CFRN, Section 162.

[15] Theodore Okonkwo, ‘Ownership and Control of Natural Resources under the Nigerian Constitution 1999 and its Implications for Environmental Law and Practice’ International Law Research (2017) (6) (1).

[16] Hilal Wani, Ethnic Conflict and Management in Federal Nations: Comparative Study of Nigeria and India (Research India Publications 2013)

[17] Abdul Raufu Mustapha, Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector in Nigeria (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development 2006).

[18] Muhammad Aminu Fagge, ‘Fiscal Allocation in Nigeria: Politics of Derivation Principles’ African Multidisciplinary Journal of Development (2019) (9) (3).

[19] Obasesam Okoi and MaryAnne Iwara, ‘The Failure of Governance in Nigeria: An Epistocratic Challenge’ Georgetown Journal of International Affairs <https://gjia.georgetown.edu/global-governance/the-failure-of-governance-in-nigeria-an-epistocratic-challenge/> on 26 April at 4:58PM.

[20] Ukoha Ukiwo, ‘The Study of Ethnicity in Nigeria’ Oxford Development Studies (2005) (33) (1).

[21] Remi Adekoya, ‘How Nigeria Walked into a Disastrous Independence and why Azikiwe never became Prime Minister’ Businessday Online News accessed from <https://businessday.ng/columnist/article/how-nigeria-walked-into-a-disastrous-independence-and-why-azikiwe-never-became-prime-minister/> on 26 April 2026 at 9:49 PM.

[22] Liam Anderson, ‘Federal Solutions to Ethnic Problems: Accommodating Diversity’ in Liam D. Anderson (eds) Exeter Studies in Ethno Politics (Routledge London).

[23] Joseph I. Asike, ‘Cultural Identity and Modernity in Africa: A Case for a New Philosophy’ in Theophilus Okere (eds) Identity and Change: Nigerian Philosophical Studies, I (The council for Research in Values and Philosophy).

[24] Ivereen Thaddeus, ‘Pre – Colonial Social and Political Institutions in Nigeria’ Nigerian People and Culture (2023) (2).

[25] Ibid

[26] Abu – Bakarr Bah, ‘Reconciling Ethnic and National Identities in a Divided Society: The Nigerian Dilemma of Nation – State Building’ Journal of West African Affairs (2004) (4) (2).

[27] Army is Nigeria’s Identity, Defence Minister Declares at 75^th WASA; Vanguard Online News of 15 February 2026 accessed from <https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/02/army-is-nigerias-identity-defence-minister-declares-at-75th-wasa/> on 26 April 2026 at 8:52PM.

[28] Panter-Brick, S K, & Lloyd, P C, Nigerian Politics and Military Rule : Prelude to the Civil War (University of London 1970).

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Said Adejumo and Michael Kehinde, ‘ Building democracy without Democrats? Political Parties and Threats of Democratic Reversal in Nigeria’Journal of African Elections(2007) (6) (2).

[32] Ibid.

[33] Henrick Angerbrandt, ‘Deadly Elections: Post Election Violence in Nigeria’ Journal of Modern African Studies (2018) (56) (1).

[34] Pius Isiekwene, ‘Protesters, Hoodlums and their Tribes’ The Cable Online of 26 October 2020 accessed from <https://www.thecable.ng/protesters-hoodlums-and-their-tribes/> on 26 April 2026 at 10:19 PM.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] I Festus, ‘Analysis of Options for Managing Democratic Ethnic Competition and Conflicts: The Nigerian Experience’ Journal of developing Areas (2015) (49) (2).

[38] Victor Ozoeze,’Ethnicity and Politics of Exclusion in Nigeria’ Employing Rawls & Apos’ Theory of Justice in Plural Societies’ (2005) accessed from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279500633_Ethnicity_and_Politics_of_Exclusion_in_Nigeria_Employing_Rawls’Theory_of_Justice_in_Plural_Societies> on 26 April 2026 at 10:33PM.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Bashir Usaini and Nimisore Miriam Akano, ‘Ethnic Conflict and National Stability in Nigeria’ International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Review (2025) (15) (2) 193 – 204.

[41] Troy Hofferman, The Marginalised Majority in Higher Education: Marginalised Groups and the Barriers they Face (Palgrave Macmillan 2023).

[42] Sune Laegaard, ‘On the Prospects for a Liberal Theory of Recognition’ Res Publia (2005) (11) (4).

[43] United States Commission on Civil Rights, Affirmative action in the 1980s: Dismantling the Process of Discrimination (Clearinghouse Publication 1981).

[44] Ozoeze (n38).

[45] Ibid.

[46] Bashir & Akano (n40).

[47] CFRN, Section 14 (3).

[48] Adesina (n6).

[49] Okemdi C Inubia, ‘The Guarantee of the Right to Freedom of Expression: A Panacea for Egalitarian and Equitable Country’ Achievers University Law Journal (2023) (3) 1).

[50] Richard M, ‘A Law Unto Oneself: Persona; Positivism and Our Fragmented Judiciary’ Virginia Law Review (2024) (110) (5).

The post Unity In School, Disunity In Nigeria: What Went Wrong? appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.