Nigeria urgently needs a new, homegrown Constitution that truly reflects the collective will of its people and their unique diversity, rather than continuing to rely on patchwork reforms of the existing framework.
This was the clear and emphatic view of Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), who delivered a thought-provoking address at the 13th Convocation Lecture of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, yesterday.
The lecture, with the theme: “Nigeria yesterday, today and tomorrow: imperative of a sober and definitive recalibration,” offered deep insights on the country’s constitutional challenges and the path forward.
Olanipekun urged the National Assembly to suspend all further amendments to the 1999 Constitution immediately.
He argued that the 1999 Constitution, which was imposed by the military regime of General Abdulsalami Abubakar without widespread public consultation or consent, has long outlived its usefulness.
The document, according to him, is little more than a “military albatross” that “tells lies against itself,” failing to represent Nigeria’s federating units, diversity, and core aspirations.
He said: “The National Assembly should, for the time being, stay action on any ongoing or future amendment to the 1999 Constitution.
“This Constitution needs a new rebranding, a complete overhaul — a substitution altogether.
“It has to be a negotiated document that will pave the way for a new social order.”
There is an ongoing process to amend the constitution at the National Assembly.
The process has scaled Second Reading in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Olanipekun described the root of Nigeria’s foundational challenges as stemming largely from a flawed constitutional structure that concentrates excessive power at the centre.
This structure, he believes, emasculates states, undermines their authority, and perpetuates inequalities across the federation.
Among several problematic provisions, he highlighted the Land Use Act, the arbitrary creation of local governments without genuine consultation, and the unitarisation of the judiciary.
These features, he argued, collectively impede growth, justice, equity, and sustainable development because the Constitution is neither people-driven nor reflective of Nigeria’s federal character and pluralistic society.
Recalling efforts dating back to when the 1999 Constitution was “midwifed” during General Abubakar’s military regime, Olanipekun said he has been a consistent voice advocating for a people-oriented, participatory constitution crafted through public involvement and referendum.
During his tenure as NBA President in 2002, he openly engaged former President Olusegun Obasanjo on the Constitution’s inadequacies.
At the time, Obasanjo rejected calls for a complete overhaul but has since admitted the need and aligned with calls for a new constitution.
‘How to achieve successful amendment’
Olanipekun proposed a transitional phase starting now and continuing through 2031.
During this period, Nigeria should gather, review, and harmonise previous constitutional efforts, including reports from conferences and committees on restructuring, to prepare the foundation for drafting a final, consensual document.
“During this transitional period, elections will continue and elected officials will serve their terms, but with the understanding that, come May 29, 2031, Nigeria will operate under a new Constitution, a new structure, and begin a fresh dawn,” he said.
A strong case was also made by Olanipekun for conducting a national referendum as an indispensable democratic tool.
He described referendum as “a solemn act by which people collectively speak in unison to decide matters of grave national importance.”
He drew parallels with significant international referendums, including the Italian referendum of 1946 that ended the monarchy, Britain’s 2016 Brexit vote, and Equatorial Guinea’s 2025 Constitutional Referendum that recorded over 90 per cent voter approval.
He reminded the audience that referendums are not foreign to Nigeria, recalling the 1961 plebiscite allowing the Southern Cameroons to decide whether to join Nigeria or Cameroon, and the 1963 referendum that led to the creation of the Mid-Western Region.
Olanipekun emphasised the principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in Section 14(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, underscoring that ultimate power belongs to the people, who have the inalienable right to decide how they wish to be governed.
Olanipekun stressed that it should be referendum, not the National Assembly, that decides the composition and governance of the National Assembly itself — whether it should be full or part-time, their tenure, remuneration, and other conditions.
He argued that the National Assembly cannot fairly make decisions about itself, since one cannot be a judge in one’s own cause.
Instead, he said, the federating units should organise the referendum, determine how it will be conducted, and establish its parameters.
Turning to security issues, he strongly criticised Nigeria’s over-centralised policing system — under which governors hold the title “chief security officers” but lack real control over police operations within their states.
This disconnect, he said, limits effective local security responses.
Drawing on examples from decentralised security models in the United States, Germany, Canada, and Switzerland, Olanipekun argued that state and community policing better aligns with federal principles and enhances timely responses to local security threats.
The legal luminary called for a reconfiguration of Nigeria’s federal structure based on geopolitical zones empowered to champion national renaissance and recalibration.
He observed that the current six-zone arrangement, introduced under General Sani Abacha, has gained practical meaning under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu through the creation of regional development commissions.
Olanipekun insisted that the states, not the Federal Government, should determine the nation’s governance framework since the states predate and gave birth to the center.
He lamented that states seem to have lost their traditional constitutional jurisdictions and gravitas within the federal system.
He cautioned: “Surprisingly, although not unexpectedly, people are still clamouring for the creation of more states.
“It is submitted that it is not the more the merrier, but the more states are created, the more weakened the so-called federating units become and the more imperious the center.”
‘Tinubu saved Nigeria’s democracy from collapse’
In a spirited tribute, Olanipekun commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for his political resilience during years of opposition.
He stated that President Tinubu’s courage was instrumental in preventing Nigeria from sliding into a one-party state.
Sharing personal insight, Olanipekun recounted his experience as President Tinubu’s lead counsel during his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal. He witnessed relentless pressure on President Tinubu for refusing to align with the then-ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
He said: “Had Tinubu succumbed to harassment and intimidation, Nigeria might have become a one-party state long ago.
“His perseverance helped preserve our multiparty democracy when it was on the brink of collapse.”
Olanipekun lamented the erosion of political ideology and internal discipline among Nigeria’s political parties, calling this a major setback to democratic development.
He analysed the evolution of political parties in Nigeria, contrasting the ideologically grounded formations of the First and Second Republics with the personality-driven, fluid alliances that dominate today’s political landscape.
He noted that early parties such as the Action Group (AG), Northern People’s Congress (NPC), National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), and National Party of Nigeria (NPN) were rooted in philosophies and policy orientations that reflected their members’ diversity and aspirations.
These parties maintained doctrinal discipline, structured manifestoes, and policy consistency, allowing citizens to identify with them based on conviction and ideology rather than personal gain.
In contrast, Olanipekun observed that today’s parties have lost meaningful ideological identity, functioning largely as “vehicles for personal ambition and opportunism.”
He criticised frequent defections and cross-carpeting by politicians motivated by access to power or patronage, often with no regard for party values or policies.
This, he said, has transformed politics into a marketplace of convenience.
He called for a return to ideological politics with political parties anchored on core values, coherent manifestoes, and internal democracy.
Olanipekun held up President Tinubu’s political journey as an example of consistency, ideological loyalty, and courage under pressure—the kind of qualities now rare in Nigeria’s political class.
He warned that unprincipled party-switching weakens democracy’s institutional framework and breeds citizen cynicism by blurring distinctions between ruling and opposition parties.
He urged parties to entrench fidelity to founding philosophies, respect internal democracy, and use ideological consistency as a benchmark for leadership recruitment.
ABUAD Founder Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) saluted Olanipekun for the soul-lifting lecture but lamented Nigeria’s ongoing socio-economic challenges that threaten progress.
He promised to send the lecture and a letter to President Tinubu and the National Assembly.
He called for urgent action to address the country’s crisis.
