Why a State of Origin is Preferable to a State of Residence Policy in Nigeria?
By Priye S. Torulagha
A debate has been going on in Nigeria concerning whether the principle of State of origin or the principle of state of residence should be adopted constitutionally to legalize the status of Nigerians who live in states other than their states of origin (Olugbile, 2024, June 3). The principle of the state of origin emphasizes the view that only the indigenous citizens of any given state should have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the rights, benefits, and obligations emanating from the state. This means that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should not have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the benefits and obligations accruing to the indigenes of the state.
On the other hand, those who support the principle of the state of residence emphasize the view that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should have the right to vote for elective offices in the states they live or reside and be able to enjoy the benefits and obligations accruing from the states they reside rather than the states they originate from. This option implies that Nigerians should have the right to vote and be treated as the citizens of the states in which they reside, regardless of their original states of origin. Basically, a Nigerian should be recognized as a citizen of the state where he or she resides or lives and not where the individual originally came from. Those who support this position often point to the United States where the state of residence allows Americans to live in any part of the country and enjoy the benefits and obligations of the states where they live, after completing the requirement for state residency.
However, in critically examining the Nigerian sociopolitical environment, it is argued here that the principle of the state of origin should be the standard constitutional framework for deciding who is a resident of any state. In other words, the state of origin should be the standard for determining the status of Nigerians, at the present time in Nigerian history. Why the preference for the state of origin over the state of residence? There are many reasons for choosing the state of origin option.
First, Nigeria contains three of the most populous ethnic groups in Africa with each numbering more than 30 million people. At the same time, there are hundreds of small or minority ethnic groups in the country. If a state of residence is allowed to take place, there is no doubt that members of the three largest ethnic groups are most likely to dominate the smaller ethnic group as they move around to take advantage of the policy of state of residence. As a result, during elections, the settlers from the major ethnic groups are likely to overwhelm the populations of the indigenous groups to the extent that they will become the determinants of who becomes the governors, local government chairs, senators, and representatives of the states with small ethnic groups through massive voting.
Such a development will simply take Nigeria back to the era of regionalism where the major ethnic groups dominated the minority groups to the extent that they became mere vassals in each of the three regions. It should be recalled that as soon as the British established the colony of Nigeria, minority ethnic groups started to campaign vigorously for the creation of states to avoid being absorbed or gobbled up by the major ethnic groups. It was the desire to create a political space between them and the major ethnic nationalities that enabled them to demand the creation of states during the Henry Willinks Commission Hearings in London in 1957-1958. Therefore, the creation of states by Gen. Yakubu Gowon on June 27, 1967, was intended to enable the minority groups to manage their own affairs without being dominated by the major ethnic groups.
Second, a state of residence policy will result in dragging the country down economically. Why? Because Nigerians who hail from economically unproductive or depressed states with high unemployment levels are likely to flock to states with high economic productivity to compete with the indigenes for jobs and to overwhelm the social services of those states. Thus, as more Nigerians move from economically unproductive and gloomy states to those with high economic growth, those states would be forced to bear the brunt of accommodating the economic refugees, thereby, putting undue pressure on their infrastructures and financial resources. Such pressure can result in economic downturn and push the states to the point of collapsing due to the population overflow. Moreover, the economically vibrant states would be forced to solve problems generated by the unproductive states. The possibility of unrestrained migration as Nigerians rush to states that are doing well to claim residency should not be dismissed. After all, that is what is happening in the global system as people migrate in large numbers from the developing countries to the developed countries in search of greener pastures, thereby putting undue pressure on the economy and social welfare programs in those countries, especially in the West.
Third, it is quite possible that states which are led by incompetent or less imaginative governors might tactically encourage their citizens to migrate to states with robust economic growth, thereby putting on undue pressure on the productive states while the less productive states end up with less problems to solve as they encourage their citizens to migrate. In other words, what happens internationally where citizens from poorer or economically depressed economies are sometimes encouraged to move to the economically vibrant industrialized countries with the hope that they can gain employment and send money home through foreign transfers to boost the local economy will also take place in Nigeria.
Fourth, a state of residence policy will enable Nigerians with wealth to move to less economically developed states and use their financial power to dominate the political system by serving as godfathers and godmothers to the politicians. In so doing, the settlers might eventually end up dominating the politics of such states to the extent that they become political kingmakers and queenmakers. Such a development will force indigenous politicians of the less productive states to increasingly rely on the financial donations of the settler population to campaign and run for political offices. Eventually, the wealthy Nigerian settlers might end up acting like colonial masters to the indigenous population and take over the states with the promise to assist them to generate their economies.
Fifth, those who support the principle of state of residency try to justify the system by referencing the U.S. state system where American citizens call wherever they live as their states of origin. It is obvious that the American system is unworkable in Nigeria because the Nigerian sociopolitical environment is not compatible with that of the United States. The reason is that the U.S is basically a settler state where most of the citizens originated from other parts of the world to settle in the U.S. Like the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, most countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are settler states because the indigenous populations were replaced by settlers. Therefore, in such countries, it is easier for an individual to move from one state or region to another to become a resident since majority of the citizens are settlers. In Nigeria, people are irrevocably tied to the territories of their ethnicities because most Nigerians are indigenous groups.
Nigeria is a country where the ethnic nationalities existed for hundreds and thousands of years before the establishment of Nigeria as a colony. Thus, each ethnic nationality has its own territorial space and operates like a state. Hence, there is Hausaland, Igboland, Kanuriland, Yorubaland, Tivland, Ijawland, Ibibioland Edoland, Junkunland, Urhoboland, and so forth. The lands in Nigeria are owned by the ethnic groups and they have a right to make decisions about their territories without someone from another ethnic group dictating how they should live and use their lands. Therefore, the principle of the state of origin is more compatible with the African cultural tradition whereby each ethnic group has a territorial space to manage its existence. A state of residence policy will seriously impede the African cultural tradition, thereby resulting in constant conflict as the indigenes fight against the settlers to maintain their ownership of their territorial lands. Land conflicts are already raging in Nigeria, especially in Northeast and Northcentral Nigeria. Thus, people in the Middle Belt have paid dearly as settlers try to grab their lands through violent invasion.
Sixth, a state of residency works in Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and so forth, because these Western countries operate an individualistic social system where the individual is treated like a legal corporate entity as soon as the person reaches the age of adulthood (either 18 or 21 years old). As an adult, the individual is free to leave his or her family and take a path that is opposed to the family without facing any consequence as far as the law is not violated. Thus, an individual can move from state or region or province to another and become a resident by cutting off previous connections. In Nigeria, the prevailing social system is collectivism or communalism where the individual is irrevocably tied to the extended family, community through kinship and the ethnic group in perpetuity. Quite often, in Nigeria, family decisions are made collectively. Consequently, it is culturally impossible to adopt a system that glorifies individualism in an environment that is based on collectivism.
Seventh, Nigeria’s ethnic groups are characterized by two geographic modes of existence. Some ethnic groups are migratory in nature like nomads, and their members prefer to settle and own land wherever they put root due to the nature of their economic activities. On the other hand, other ethnic groups are stationary in nature, where their members prefer to establish their permanent residence in their territorial homelands without moving all over the place to settle. Therefore, if a policy of state of residence were instituted through the constitution or statutory law, it is the ethnic groups that have migratory tendencies that will benefit the most. The reason is that such a law will enable their members to spread all over the country and establish political and economic bases to eventually dominate the country. On the other hand, the stationary ethnic groups will bear the brunt of surrendering their lands to members of migratory ethnic groups to the extent that conflict between the indigenes and settlers will erupt uncontrollably to destabilize Nigeria. Why? Because the stationary ethnic groups might feel that the migratory groups are tactically using the policy of the state of residence to take over their lands.
Eighth, a state of residence policy will lead to a situation whereby the indigenous owners of the lands are displaced by the settler population from different parts of the country. There are many examples to cite to show the possibility of land displacement. The indigenous people of Lagos, that is, the Awori or Amori people are not happy that settlers from other parts of the country have almost literarily taken over their territory, thereby, turning their homeland into a No Man’s Land. The overwhelming population of the settlers’ forces Lagos State government to spend considerably to cater to the needs of the settler population while the indigenes suffer from marginalization and neglect. Additionally, it is mostly settlers who have served as the governors of Lagos State since 1999 while the indigenes are treated like invisible and unimportant entities (Olumoro, 2025, January 17).
Similarly, the indigenous people of Abuja have lost control of most of their territory since they agreed to allow Abuja to be turned into Nigeria’s capital. Today, only very rich settlers can afford to buy land in Abuja and the indigenes are treated like refugees. The settlers do not care about the plight of the Abuja people who cannot afford to buy land in Abuja because wealthy Nigerian settlers have turned the place into an exclusive enclave for wealthy settlers.
Ninth, Nigeria is not politically, sociologically, and legally ready to create an environment where the entire country becomes an open space for Nigerians to congregate and claim to be residents of the states they live while also having their own states of origin. Since Nigeria has not metamorphosed to a stage where a state of residence can replace a state of origin, it would be a major strategic mistake for Nigerian authorities to pass legislation approving a state of residence as a public policy. Why? Because Nigeria is a British creation and it is a mere geographical expression until Nigerians restructure the country and come up with a constitution that reflects the interest of the generality of Nigerians.
Otherwise, the policy of state of residence will be abused and used to exploit and marginalize hundreds of ethnic groups in the country because Nigerian institutions are too weak and easily exploited by the financially and politically powerful members of society. It should be reminded that the policy of nationalization of mineral resources resulted in the exploitation of the oil wealth while the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South are marginalized and deprived. Sadly, the oil wealth has been privatized by highly connected individuals in Nigeria who have accumulated substantial wealth from the resources that belongs to the people of the oil region. It is predictable that a policy of state of residence will be abused the way nationalization of mineral resources has been abused.
Tenth, a state of residence policy will encourage powerful individuals to relocate to states with enormous mineral resources and dominate the exploration of the minerals by claiming to be residents of the states. This possibility is not far-fetched because it is widely reported that part of the violence, killings, and destruction of communities that are being perpetrated are sponsored by powerful individuals who form mining cartels to exploit gold and other solid minerals in Benue, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, and Zamfara states (Daily Trust, 2024, January 20). The same will happen if a state of residence is adopted. Greedy and crooked Nigerians who want to get rich quickly will form human trafficking cartels to purposively encourage thousands of Nigerians to migrate to states with critical minerals and use such settlers to exploit the minerals at the disadvantage of the indigenous owners of the lands. This is why people in Benue, Kaduna, Niger, Plateau, and Zamfara states and paying dearly with their lives as sponsored gun-totting gangs operate the mines.
Eleventh, if a state of origin is replaced by a state of residence, soon or later, settlers who are financially endowed are most likely to use their wealth to bribe police and military officers and judges to bend and interpret the law against indigenous members of the states whenever land issue arises between the original owners and settlers. This is a great possibility because in Nigeria today, there is a tendency by police and military personnel to take actions in favor of the high and mighty who bribe them to act in a certain way. This is why land grabbers today can grab land from their original owners with the assistance of corrupt police and military officers. Thus, if a state of residence is legalized, settlers might end up owning the most productive lands in various states by bribing police and military officers and judges to enforce the law and rule in their favor.
Twelfth, if the state of residence becomes the law of the land, in most states, the settlers might act like cattle herders who have been using violence to force out indigenous owners and occupy their lands through displacement. They would be able to do so by forming interest groups to influence national and state governments to enact laws and make public policy decisions on land in their favor the way Fulani herdsmen have been able to influence the Nigerian government to look the other way and allow them to invade, destroy, and kill indigenous farmers with the security forces not intervening aggressively to stop them. On the other hand, currently, if an indigenous Nigerian commits a crime against a herder, the police and the army react quickly to arrest the individual. Thus, the law is tilted in favor of herders due to special political relationships, hence the police and the army are not eager to use full force against herders, bandits, and kidnappers.
It is also the case that due to special relationships or connections, the Nigerian Police Force and the Nigerian Army rarely apprehend herders who carry prohibited guns. On the other hand, security agencies generally do not hesitate to arrest any indigenous Nigerian who carries a gun. Even judges have no hesitation in sentencing indigenous Nigerians who are arrested for carrying guns while they hesitate to sentence Fulani herdsmen to imprisonment for carrying guns. Right now, in Adamawa State, a farmer known as Sunday Jackson who fought and killed a herder named Ardo Bawuro who allegedly invaded his farm and attempted to kill him was sentenced to death and the Supreme Court agreed with the sentence by disregarding the fact that the farmer fought to protect his life from someone who attempted to kill him (Ogebe, 2025, March 7). It should also be noted that a kidnap kingpin named Hamisu Bala, otherwise known as “Wadume” who had been involved in several kidnapping cases and was later involved in a case in which an army officer allegedly ordered the killings of five police operatives of the Intelligence Response Team (IRT) when the accused escaped from the police team and gained protection of a unit of the 93 Battalion of the Nigerian Army, stationed in Takum, was only sentenced to seven years imprisonment for his heinous crimes. The army captain who ordered the killings of the police officers was promoted by the Nigerian Army. Moreover, Mr. Wadume was released from prison after serving less than three years because of the backdating of his date of arrest to 2019 (Abeku, 2024, April 8). Consequently, a state of residence will give an advantage to the settlers against the indigenes of the states whenever there is a dispute involving the two groups.
Thirteenth, a state of residence, if passed as a law, will violate the African cultural tradition in which every ethnic group exercises authority over its own territory. In other words, it is against the law of nature in Africa to prevent various nationalities in Nigeria from exercising authority over their lands as tradition demands. A state of residence policy will destroy the ethnic groups in Nigeria by allowing those with money and political power to impose their will on nationalities that do not command political influence in the country. Indeed, hundreds of ethnic groups would suffer under a state of residence policy because aggressive Nigerian settlers will spread all over the country and impose their will through capturing the states.
Fourteenth, the notion of a state of residence is too radical because Nigeria has not metamorphosed politically to a state of national cohesion where all Nigerians can shed their ethnicities and embrace one nationality. Despite being over sixty years old, Nigeria has not congealed to form a united nationhood because the founding fathers competed during the struggle for independence along ethnic and regional lines to dominate the country rather than work together to unite the country. In other words, Nigeria continues to be a mere geographical expression because it was created by a foreign power and continues to operate disjointedly. Consequently, it would be too revolutionary for Nigerians to give away their ethnicities and embrace a country in which the ethnic coloration no longer matters when the politics of the country continues to be based on ethnicity, region, and religion.
Fifteenth, a state of residence policy will only breed more problems for Nigeria as settlers compete with the indigenes of the states for land ownership, the right to vote to determine who becomes the senator, governor, representative and the local government chair and to share the resources of the states. To avoid the internecine conflicts that might take place, it is necessary for the state of origin to remain so that resources of the states are used for the benefits of the indigenes of the states. A state of residence is not practicable at this time in the history of Nigeria because Nigerians are culturally and religiously attached to their ancestral homeland like other Africans.
Sixteenth, political parties and politicians will abuse a state of residence policy during elections by sponsoring Nigerians to move to states where critical elections are being held. The tactic is likely to involve paying some Nigerians to change their residency by moving to states where presidential, senatorial, representative, gubernatorial, and local government elections are being held and vote as residents to tilt election outcomes in favor of either a political party or a candidate. Thus, about six months before a scheduled election takes place in any state, hired voters are likely to gradually move to the state to increase the population of voters who may vote for a particular political party or a candidate. This possibility should not be dismissed because it has been allegedly reported variously that sometimes Nigeriens are Chadians are encouraged to come to Nigeria through payments to participate in elections and censuses. Similarly, it is a common practice among Nigerian political parties and candidates to pay voters at the election centers to vote for their parties and candidates (Salihu, 2023, February 1).
Seventeenth, A state of residence policy, if enacted into law, will encourage double residency by some Nigerians. Basically, some Nigerians might exploit the system by claiming rights in both their states of residence and states of origin. They are likely to exploit the system by claiming to be residents of the states they live in while secretly going to their states of origins to also claim benefits, thereby enjoying the rights to both states. In a country where corruption is rampant, a citizen may register as a resident of the state he or she resides and then quietly go to his or her state of origin to bribe some officials to register him or her as a resident, thereby voting and enjoying the rights and obligations of both states at the same time.
Conclusion
It would be a grievous strategic political mistake for Nigeria to adopt a state of residence policy at the present time. The reason is that the country is highly fragmented based on ethnicity, region, and religion, hence, the country continues to be a mere geographical expression created by Britain and Nigerians have not fully embraced it. Moreover, it is against African cultural tradition to adopt a state of residence policy that denies the ethnic groups the right to exercise authority over their ancestral homelands. The policy could trigger massive migration by Nigerians from states with depressive economies to those with productive economies, thereby, literally bringing down the national economy when the productive states are overwhelmed by migrants from the unproductive states.
Due to the importance of communal landownership as dictated by the ancestral tradition, a state of residence policy is most likely to result in land conflicts all over the country as migratory ethnic groups compete with stationary ethnic groups to gain control of land, resources, and political power. The struggle could lead to the disintegration of the country as some ethnic groups might opt to secede from the country rather than surrender their territories to migratory groups. This implies that the state of residence idea is a threat to the national security of Nigeria.
References
Abeku, T. (2024, April 8). FG frees notorious kidnapper, Wadume two years after sentence. The Guardian. https://guardian.ng/news/fg-frees-notorious-kidnapper-wadume-two-years-after-sentence/.
Daily Trust. (2024, January 20). Powerful Nigerians were behind banditry – Alake. https://dailytrust.com/powerful-nigerians-were-behind-banditry-alake/.
Ogebe, E. (2025, March 7). Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman. Attacker. News Express. Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman attacker | News Express Nigeria.
Olugbile, F. (2024, June 3). Between residence and origin: The national question in Nigeria. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/columnist/article/between-residence-and-origin-the-national-question-in-nigeria/.
Olumoro, A. (2025, January 17). Discrimination against Lagos indigenes: The leaders needed at this time. Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/01/discrimination-against-lagos-indigenes-the-leaders-needed-at-this-time/.
Salihu, F. D. (2023, February 1). Vote buying in Nigerian politics. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/vote-buying-in-nigerian-politics/
torulaghareportsdotcom 