Seyi Makinde’s Gospel Of Division In The North | Maroof Asudemade

Governor Seyi Makinde appears to have discovered a convenient political gospel: whenever Nigeria has a problem, take the responsibility away from the Federal Government and hand it to the states.

His latest sermon came in Katsina, where he demanded that mining be removed from the Exclusive Legislative List and transferred to state governments, arguing that “states will do better” if given control of mining while the Federal Government retains only an oversight role.

On the surface, it sounds like another harmless argument for restructuring. It is not. At a time when Nigeria desperately needs greater cohesion, stronger institutions and a common national economic direction, Makinde’s increasingly strident campaign for the wholesale devolution of national responsibilities deserves serious scrutiny. The question Nigerians should ask is simple: Where exactly is Governor Makinde taking Nigeria?

Because there comes a point when what is presented as “true federalism” begins to look less like strengthening the federation and more like systematically weakening the centre until the country becomes a loose collection of powerful states.

That is where Makinde’s political philosophy becomes troubling. He wants mining devolved to the states. He has consistently advocated greater devolution of powers. He supports state police. He has championed greater resource control. And he has repeatedly argued that states should have greater responsibilities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with constitutional restructuring. Nigeria can and should debate the allocation of powers between Abuja, the states and the local governments. But Makinde cannot demand more and more powers for state governments without Nigerians asking whether the states have demonstrated the capacity, transparency and institutional discipline required to exercise those powers responsibly.

The mining question exposes the weakness of his argument. Makinde says states will do better if they control mining. Really? States already exercise substantial authority over land within their territories under the Land Use Act. Has state control of land eradicated land grabbing? Has it eliminated illegal occupation? Has it eliminated abuse of land administration? Has it stopped disputes over government acquisitions? The answer is plainly no.

Indeed, Makinde himself has faced public allegations concerning land in connection with the Circular Road project. Victims of Circular Road corridors have alleged that Makinde is a landgrabber. And precisely because the allegation exists, the governor should understand why Nigerians are entitled to ask whether simply transferring another immensely valuable national asset to state authorities is sufficient to solve the problems surrounding it.

If state control of land has not magically eliminated land-related abuses, why should Nigerians believe that state control of mineral resources will automatically eliminate illegal mining?The answer cannot simply be: “States will do better.” Governance does not improve merely because the office controlling a resource moves from Abuja to Agodi.

Bad governance can be federal. Bad governance can be state. And, as Nigerians know only too well, bad governance can also be local. The real issue is accountability.

That brings us to the most glaring contradiction in Makinde’s devolution gospel: electricity. Nigeria has already moved significantly in the direction Makinde advocates. The Electricity Act 2023 and constitutional changes opened the way for states to participate more extensively in electricity regulation. The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission says the electricity sector was decentralised in 2023, and Oyo State formally transitioned to regulating its own electricity market on February 5, 2025. So what has Governor Makinde done with that opportunity? What has Oyo State’s electricity autonomy produced for the people? Why, in the 21st century, is Oyo State still deploying diesel-powered generators to illuminate streetlights? It is happening under Makinde’s government.

And the governor himself defended the practice on September 21, 2026, arguing that the generators became necessary because of inadequate electricity supply. His administration’s defence, therefore, raises an uncomfortable question: If Makinde is so confident that states will do better when given control of critical sectors, why has the state not demonstrated a more sustainable electricity solution after acquiring greater authority over its electricity market?

You cannot stand in Katsina and preach that states will do better with mining while the state you govern is still burning diesel to power public streetlights after electricity regulation has already been opened to the states. You cannot demand more powers from Abuja while failing to demonstrate convincingly what you have done with powers already transferred. You cannot constantly tell Nigerians that the problem is the Federal Government’s control while simultaneously presiding over state-level solutions that still depend on diesel generators for basic public lighting. That is the contradiction Makinde must explain.

And it gets worse. When the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional basis of local-government financial autonomy in July 2024, Makinde dismissed the issue as a “distraction” and questioned whether local governments could survive without what he described as “handouts from Abuja.”

Here again, Nigerians should ask: If decentralisation is good, why stop at the governors? Why should Abuja relinquish powers to state governors but state governors hesitate when powers are to move further down to local governments? Why should mineral resources be controlled by states while local governments are treated as administrative appendages? Why should the philosophy of autonomy become sacred when Abuja is involved but suddenly become inconvenient when the autonomy concerns the 33 local governments of Oyo State? Is the real objective decentralisation or simply the relocation of power from one political centre to another? That is the question Makinde’s politics must answer.

The Federal Government under President Bola Tinubu has itself pursued decentralisation in several areas, including state police and electricity reform. Indeed, the Tinubu administration has moved toward constitutional accommodation for state police. If the Federal Government is willing to surrender certain powers to states, then states must demonstrate that they can exercise those powers transparently, efficiently and sustainably. Devolution must not become a one-way street in which governors endlessly demand more powers from Abuja while resisting accountability at home.

And there is another fundamental danger. Nigeria is not merely an administrative arrangement between 36 governors and a President. It is a federation. The mineral wealth beneath Nigerian soil is national wealth. Oil is national wealth. Gas is national wealth. Solid minerals are national wealth. They belong within a constitutional framework designed to balance national interests with those of the federating units.

If every major national resource is progressively carved out and handed to state governments, while the Federal Government’s responsibilities and fiscal base are continually weakened, Nigerians are entitled to ask whether the destination is still a strong federation. Or whether, in substance, we are being pushed towards a confederation.

Makinde may call it “true federalism.” He may call it “devolution.” He may call it “resource control.” But names do not change consequences. A federation can be restructured without being dismantled. States can be strengthened without making Abuja irrelevant. Local governments can be empowered without destroying the constitutional authority of the federation.

But a political philosophy that continually says “take this power from the centre and give it to the states” must eventually answer the question: how much power can you remove from the centre before the centre becomes incapable of holding the federation together?

That is why Makinde’s latest mining proposal cannot be treated as an isolated policy suggestion. It is part of a larger political philosophy. And Nigerians have every right to interrogate that philosophy. Before Governor Makinde asks Nigerians to entrust states with the nation’s mineral wealth, let him explain what his government has achieved with the powers already devolved to Oyo State. Let him explain why Oyo, after entering the state electricity regulatory framework, is still using diesel generators to power streetlights. Let him explain why local-government autonomy, a constitutional principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, became, in his own words, a “distraction.”

Let him explain why decentralisation should apparently stop at the governor’s office. And above all, let him tell Nigerians plainly: is he trying to strengthen the Nigerian federation, or is he pursuing a political architecture in which the states become so powerful that the Federal Government is gradually reduced to a shell of its former authority? He is seeking to govern Nigeria through federation and throw Nigeria into confederation.

Nigeria needs restructuring where restructuring is necessary. Nigeria needs efficient governance. Nigeria needs genuine fiscal federalism. Nigeria needs strong states. Nigeria needs strong local governments. But Nigeria also needs a strong Nigeria.

And that is precisely why Governor Makinde’s gospel of endless devolution must be subjected to the harshest possible scrutiny. You cannot build a stronger Nigeria by continually weakening Nigeria’s centre. You cannot preach federalism while your prescription increasingly resembles confederation. And you cannot ask Nigerians to trust states with more powers without first demonstrating that those powers will produce better governance.

For Makinde, he may well have subtly begun the gospel of dividing Nigeria and he thinks the right place to begin his evangelism of division is the north. Is redirection of powers Makinde’s mindset of reset?