Nigeria’s Winner-Takes-All Politics: Stop blaming the Igbo for federal decisions

One of Nigeria’s enduring political problems is the perception—and too often the reality—of a winner-takes-all system, in which access to the presidency can significantly influence appointments, infrastructure priorities, federal investment and political influence.

This is precisely why discussions about regional development must be based on facts and institutional responsibility rather than ethnic blame.

President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration was repeatedly criticised for the regional composition of some of its senior appointments. President Bola Tinubu’s appointments have likewise generated arguments about regional balance, particularly the representation of the South-West. However, the complete picture is more complicated: Federal Character Commission data presented in 2025 showed the North holding 401 of 712 federal leadership positions counted, or 56.3%, while the South held 43.7%. Within the six geopolitical zones, the North-West had 22.1%, North-Central 19.5%, South-West 18.5%, North-East 14.7%, South-South 12.8% and South-East 12.4%.

The significant point is therefore broader than Buhari, Tinubu, Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo. Nigeria has still not built sufficiently strong institutions to convince every part of the federation that access to national opportunities is independent of who occupies the presidency.

The South-East has an additional historical grievance. Since the end of the Nigerian Civil War in 1970, no Nigerian president or military Head of State has come from the South-East’s Igbo heartland. Whatever one’s political persuasion, that is a historical fact.

It is therefore unreasonable to blame ordinary Igbo people—or even “the Igbo” collectively—for federal infrastructure decisions over which they do not exercise presidential authority.

The seaport question illustrates the problem

Consider the current debate over the proposed deep-sea port in Ogun State.

On 24 September 2026, the Ogun State Government and DP World signed an MoU for a deep-sea-port project, with President Tinubu publicly assuring investors of federal regulatory clarity and support.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Ogun State pursuing a commercially viable deep-sea port. Every state should be encouraged to attract investment.

But Nigerians are equally entitled to ask a legitimate national-development question:

What is the long-term federal maritime strategy for the existing ports of the South-South and the wider eastern economic corridor?

Nigeria already has federally recognised ports at Lagos/Apapa, Tin Can, Lekki, Rivers/Port Harcourt, Onne, Warri/Delta and Calabar. Several eastern ports have historically faced infrastructure, draught, access, connectivity and competitiveness challenges.

The Nigerian Ports Authority itself recognises Rivers Port, Onne, Delta/Warri and Calabar as major Nigerian ports.

Therefore, asking why these ports cannot be modernised, dredged where economically justified, connected efficiently to rail and road networks, and made more competitive is a legitimate public-policy question.

But that question should be directed to the Federal Government, Nigerian Ports Authority, relevant ministries, state governments and investors.

It makes little sense to turn around and blame the Igbo for the location of a port being developed in Ogun State.

The Igbo did not site it.

We should also be fair to history

The argument becomes stronger when we avoid rewriting history.

Goodluck Jonathan, a South-South president, cannot accurately be said to have done “nothing tangible” for the South-South. His administration invested significantly in the East-West Road, for example. By the end of 2014, the Federal Government reported that overall progress on major sections of the project had risen from 47% at the inception of SURE-P intervention to about 82%.

Whether Jonathan did enough for the Niger Delta is a legitimate political debate. But saying that nothing substantial was done would weaken an otherwise important argument.

Similarly, Buhari’s administration undertook projects affecting the South-East and South-South, including completion of the Second Niger Bridge and the Itakpe-Ajaokuta-Warri railway. The existence of those projects does not invalidate complaints about regional imbalance; it simply means that the debate should be based on comparative evidence rather than absolute statements.

The deeper historical problem

There is another dimension that deserves serious reflection.

Before the Civil War, today’s South-East and most of today’s South-South formed the old Eastern Region. But that region was never ethnically homogeneous. It contained Igbo, Ibibio, Ijaw, Efik, Ogoni and numerous other peoples, and tensions over majority-minority relations existed well before the war.

In May 1967, General Yakubu Gowon’s Federal Military Government abolished the four-region structure and created twelve states. The old Eastern Region was divided into East-Central State, Rivers State and South-Eastern State. Contemporary historical accounts make clear that satisfying long-standing minority demands was one objective, while weakening the territorial and political base of the Eastern regional government as the confrontation with Ojukwu escalated was another.

That history matters.

But it should teach today’s generation something more constructive than permanent suspicion.

The Igbo have a proverb: “Igwe bu ike”—there is strength in numbers, unity and collective purpose.

Nigeria’s early nationalist politics included Igbo leaders who strongly advocated a united Nigeria. Equally, minority peoples of the old Eastern Region had legitimate historical fears about domination within that region. Both histories must be acknowledged.

The tragedy is that decades later, old suspicions can still be activated whenever serious proposals for economic cooperation between the South-East and South-South are discussed.

If an Igbo person proposes stronger economic integration, it should not automatically be interpreted as an attempt at “Igbo domination.” Equally, the legitimate identity and political autonomy of Ijaw, Ibibio, Efik, Ogoni, Urhobo, Itsekiri and other peoples should never be dismissed in the name of eastern unity.

Cooperation does not require domination.

South-East and South-South should ask a different question

Rather than asking, “What have the Igbo done for us?” or “What have South-South people done for the Igbo?”, perhaps the more productive question is:

What can the South-East and South-South accomplish together economically that neither can accomplish as effectively alone?

Imagine a coordinated eastern economic corridor linking the industrial and commercial capacity of Aba, Nnewi, Onitsha and Enugu with Port Harcourt, Onne, Calabar, Warri, Uyo and the wider Niger Delta.

Imagine competitive ports connected to industrial centres by modern railways and highways.

Imagine cooperation in gas processing, petrochemicals, manufacturing, agriculture, technology, power generation, export processing and maritime logistics.

That would not be an “Igbo project.”

It would be an economic project serving tens of millions of Nigerians across numerous ethnic groups.

The real lesson should therefore be simple:

Stop blaming ethnic communities for decisions made by the Federal Government.

If a federal administration makes an infrastructure decision that appears unbalanced, challenge the decision. Demand the economic justification. Compare investment across regions. Ask for the cost-benefit analysis. Demand transparency and adherence to federal character.

But do not blame the Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, Hausa, Fulani, Ibibio or any other Nigerian people collectively for decisions taken by governments and political officeholders.

Nigeria will make greater progress when citizens learn to hold institutions and decision-makers accountable, rather than transferring governmental responsibility onto entire ethnic groups.

And perhaps the South-East and South-South, given their shared geography, complementary economies and common interest in functioning ports and infrastructure, have more to gain from economic cooperation than from repeatedly reopening the suspicions of the 1960s.