By Ade Iyamoye
Nigeria’s economic hardship has increasingly been laid at the doorstep of President Bola Tinubu. While the pain Nigerians are experiencing is real and undeniable, blaming the President alone ignores a critical fact: Nigeria operates a federal system, and much of what affects citizens daily falls squarely within the powers and responsibilities of state governors.
A factual and balanced assessment shows that Nigeria’s crisis is as much a subnational governance failure as it is a federal challenge.
Nigeria’s Federal Structure: Shared Responsibility, Not Sole Authority
Under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Nigeria runs a federal system where powers, resources and responsibilities are shared among the federal, state and local governments.
Key areas that directly affect citizens’ welfare, such as:
-Primary and secondary education
-Primary healthcare
-Agriculture and food production
-Local roads and markets
-Rural security and policing support
are largely under the control of state and local governments, not the Presidency.
There are 36 governors and the FCT Minister, each with significant autonomy, budgets and executive powers. It is therefore inaccurate to attribute nationwide underperformance solely to one individual at the centre.
Governors Control Massive Resources
Statistically, Nigerian states are not poor on paper.
-Between FAAC allocations and Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), states collectively receive trillions of naira annually.
–Many states receive over ₦5-10 billion monthly from the Federation Account.
–In addition, states benefit from:
*Budget support facilities
*World Bank and donor-funded programmes
*Security votes running into hundreds of millions monthly
Yet, despite these inflows:
–Civil servants are owed salaries and pensions in some states
–Public schools and hospitals remain dilapidated
–Rural infrastructure is largely absent
This raises a fundamental question: Where is the money going?
Food Inflation: A Governor-Level Failure
One of the biggest drivers of Nigeria’s current hardship is food inflation. But agriculture is constitutionally a residual matter, meaning states have wide latitude to act.
Governors:
–Control vast arable land
–Can establish ranches, farm estates and storage facilities
–Can invest in irrigation, extension services and agro-processing
Yet, many states:
–Depend almost entirely on food transported from a few regions
–Fail to secure farmlands against banditry
–Allocate little of their budgets to agriculture despite its strategic importance
Blaming Tinubu for high food prices while governors leave fertile land idle is economically dishonest.
Security: States Are Not Helpless
While the federal government controls the armed forces, state governments play a decisive role in internal security.
Governors:
–Are Chief Security Officers of their states
–Fund logistics for police and security agencies
–Establish and support outfits like Amotekun, Ebube Agu and local vigilantes
–Control land-use decisions that affect conflict dynamics
In several states, insecurity persists not because Abuja has done nothing, but because:
–Local intelligence is weak
–Security votes lack transparency
–Political will is absent
Security failures cannot be blamed on the President alone when governors sit at the centre of local coordination.
Education and Healthcare: Governors’ Direct Mandate
Public outrage over failing schools and hospitals often targets the federal government, yet:
-Primary healthcare centres are owned and funded by local and state governments
-Basic education is a state responsibility, with UBEC funds often left unaccessed due to counterpart funding failures
Reports have repeatedly shown that billions of naira in UBEC funds remain unutilised because states fail to meet basic requirements.
It is misleading to accuse the President of neglecting education when governors fail to access funds already allocated to them.
Tinubu’s Policies vs. Governors’ Implementation
President Tinubu’s administration has implemented controversial but structural reforms, including:
-Removal of fuel subsidy
-Exchange rate unification
-Fiscal tightening
These policies are painful, but they are macro-level decisions aimed at long-term stability.
What has been largely missing is state-level cushioning:
-Few governors have introduced effective transport subsidies
-Very few states have rolled out large-scale food intervention programmes
-Social safety nets at subnational level are weak or non-existent
Governors cannot support harsh federal reforms rhetorically while failing to mitigate their local impact.
The Political Convenience of Blaming Abuja
Blaming the President has become politically convenient.
Governors:
-Attend FAAC meetings monthly
-Approve state budgets annually
-Control local governments
-Exercise near-total influence within their states
Yet, when hardship bites, they point fingers at Abuja, shielding themselves from accountability.
This culture weakens federalism and robs citizens of the right to demand performance from their closest leaders.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s problems are complex and multi-layered. President Tinubu should be scrutinised, but he should not be scapegoated for failures rooted in poor subnational governance.
If Governors:
-Invest in agriculture
-Improve security coordination
-Prudently manage resources
-Strengthen education and healthcare
-Deploy targeted social interventions the impact of federal economic reforms would be significantly reduced.
In a federation, no single man can ruin or rescue, a nation alone.
If Nigeria must work, governors must work too.
