In a thought-provoking thread on X, Kingsley Moghalu, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and a prominent political figure, has reignited the debate on Nigeria’s persistent challenges in achieving its potential as a nation.
Moghalu, who posted his views at 07:25 UTC on Friday, argues that the root cause of Nigeria’s struggles is not corruption, as many often assume, but rather the country’s failure to evolve into a true nation. Instead, he describes Nigeria as a “territorial state” lacking the unifying fabric of nationhood—a condition that perpetuates systemic issues like corruption, economic stagnation, and political instability.
Moghalu attributes this disparity to the absence of a shared national vision, which he says has allowed the political elite to focus on power and “primitive accumulation” rather than governance and the delivery of public goods. “It’s the absence of nationhood that creates the economic stasis, because there is no real vision,” he wrote, pointing to the economy’s long-standing reliance on “access to economic rents” by competing vested interests rather than wealth creation for the masses.
With a population of over 220 million, over 60% of Nigerians lived below the poverty line in 2022, according to the World Bank—a stark contrast to the country’s vast oil wealth.
The historical context of Nigeria’s formation as a British colony in 1914 under Frederick Lugard plays a significant role in Moghalu’s analysis. The amalgamation of diverse ethnic groups with “vastly different worldviews” into a single territorial state, he argues, set the stage for ongoing power struggles. Moghalu also highlighted the unresolved legacy of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), a conflict that claimed between 500,000 and 2 million lives, largely due to starvation in Biafra. He criticized Nigerian leaders for their “cowardice” in addressing the war’s causes and consequences, suggesting that this avoidance has prevented the healing and closure necessary for nation-building. Historical records note the international dimensions of the war, with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union supporting the Nigerian government, while France and Israel backed Biafra.
To address Nigeria’s crisis of nationhood, Moghalu proposed two potential paths forward. The first is the emergence of a transformative leader akin to Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk—a figure capable of transcending ethnic divisions and restoring confidence in the idea of Nigeria among its citizens. Quoting the late President Samora Machel of Mozambique, Moghalu emphasized that “for the nation to be born and to live, the tribe must die.” The second path involves recognizing Nigeria’s ethnic diversity as a reality and negotiating a constitutional framework that ensures true federalism. This, he argues, would guarantee inclusion and equity for all ethnic nationalities within the country.
Reflecting on Nigeria’s leadership since 1999, Moghalu singled out former President Olusegun Obasanjo as the only “pan-Nigerian leader” in recent history, crediting him with evolving his views on nationhood in his later years. However, Moghalu expressed skepticism about the current political landscape, noting that he has yet to see another leader with a truly national vision capable of uniting the country.
As Nigeria approaches its 65th year of independence, Moghalu’s call for either a transformative leader or a restructured federal system underscores the urgency of addressing the nationhood question. Without such efforts, he warns, Nigeria risks remaining a country without a future—a territorial state unable to harness its immense potential for the benefit of its people.
