Bola A. Akinterinwa
There are speculations that the name, Nigeria, has the likelihood to be changed to ‘United States of Nigeria’ by end of December 2026, that is, under the current political dispensation. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PMB) has reportedly denied any intention to send a draft bill to that effect to the National Assembly. However, Vie Internationale considers that, in the event of a change of name, it will only be change-in-continuity: change of name and continuity of the well-known national problems.
There are always different reasons for changing the name of a country. Turkey changed its name in 2022 to Türkiye for two reasons: First, people jokingly liken Turkey to chicken, which is not appreciated. Secondly, the Turkish people want to disassociate themselves from the English word, Turkey. The Republic of Macedonia changed its own name in 2019 to Republic of North Macedonia for better geo-political identity to enable differentiation between Greece and qualification requirements to join the European Union. Czechia, as from 2016, is the new abbreviated name for the former Czech Republic, which is still in use. Like Ivoiriens rejected ‘Ivory Coast’ in favour of ‘Côte d’Ivoire,’ the French translation, Cape Verde similarly changed its name in 2013 to Cabo Verde, the Portuguese translation. In the same vein, Swaziland changed its name to the Kingdom of Eswatini.
Grosso modo, every change of name is driven by protection of national interest: the adoption of the French name, Côte d’Ivoire is to underscore the character of French speakingness. At the United Nations where sitting arrangement is by alphabetical order, the English name, Ivory Coast, puts the country at a sharp corner, and not in a well visible place. The French name puts the country at the centre, hence the request for a change to Côte d’Ivoire. What is the rationale for changing Nigeria’s name? Reportedly, sustainable true federalism
Futility of United States of Nigeria
There is no big issue with seeking to have Nigeria become United States of Nigeria, but there is problem with the likely aftermath, which is futility of the exercise. In discussing the futility of the new name, what should we mean by a United States of Nigeria? The notion and concept of a State in international law and relations considers a ‘State’ as the unit of analysis in official diplomacy. First, a State cannot exist in the absence of a permanent population, a well-defined territory over which authority can be exercised, and a government that is independent and capable of executing the internationally-contracted obligations by the State.
With these three definienda – spopulation, territory, and government – a State exists, but cannot enter into international diplomatic relations in the absence of international recognition, either in terms of recognition of state or recognition of government. When a State exists, the issue of attributes are necessarily raised. For instance, does the State have the highest authority? Is it sovereign? Is it dependent or independent? These questions are raised because there can be a union of population, government, and territory, as it is the case with overseas territories of some metropolitan countries, and yet, they are not sovereign.
There is also the notion of Westphalian sovereignty which talks about nation-state sovereignty. Put differently, we have state, sovereign state, and nation-state, which should not be confused with a sociologically-defined state. Sociological definition underscores cultural affinity, common language, etc. It is important to note that nation-states already existed in Africa before colonisation, even though they were referred to as empires: Ethiopian Empire, Ghana Empire, Mali Empire, Songhai Empire, Benin Empire, Kanem Empire, etc.
It is against this background that Marcus Garvey first used the notion of ‘United States of Africa’ in his poem, ‘Hail, United States of Africa,’ in 1924. As of 1924, most of African countries were dependent territories. Apart from Liberia and Ethiopia, which Italy attempted to colonise with its aggression of 1936, and were not colonized, all others were dependent territories without sovereignty. Consequently, when Marcus Garvey talked about United States of Africa, he was only dreaming of States that would not only be independent and sovereign, but also come together to be united.
President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana talked about Union of African States in the mania of the United States of America. He wanted a common African government that would encompass political and economic unity in order to achieve and ensure true independence and development. This was the background to the holding of the All-African People’s Conference held in Accra, Ghana in 1958. The Conference was the first pan-African conference to be held on African soil. At the conference, Nkrumah called for the creation of a United States of Africa, and no more Union of African States. Thus, from 1958 through 1965, Nkrumah and his advisor, a Trinidadian activist and writer, laid the foundation for further sensitization on the need for a United States of Africa. This could not work because of the conflicts of interest between the Monrovia and Casablanca schools of thought.
Additionally, Muammar Gaddafi, as Chairman of the African Union, in February 2009, was reported by the BBC to have told the AU Assembly of Heads of State as follows: ‘I (Gaddafi) shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa.’ He proposed ‘a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent.’ As good as Gaddafi’s suggestion might have been, there were still strong oppositions to it. The enmity between the proponents and opponents was divisive and not helpful to continental integration.
On the one hand, for examples, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal anticipated in 2011 that the United States of Africa could be a reality by 2017. The African Union believed that building a ‘United and Integrated’ Africa would be achievable by 2025. In fact, the territorial scope of Africa was redefined to include the African Diaspora in the Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, Dominical Republic, and the Bahamas), etc. On the other hand, Wikipedia has it that ‘a week before Gaddafi’s death during the Libyan civil war, South African President Jacob Zuma expressed relief at the regime’s downfall, complaining that Gaddafi had been intimidating many African Heads of State and Government in an effort to gain influence throughout the continent and suggesting that the African Union will function better without Gaddafi and his repeated proposals for a unitary African government.’
This point by President Zuma reminds one of President Robert Mugabe’s postulation that ‘Africa without Nigeria is hollow.’ Is Africa without Libya not similarly hollow? The death of Gaddafi during the Battle of Sirte in October 2011 did not put an end to the quest for a United States of Africa. His death has not solved the internal imbroglio in Libya. And true enough, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe came to reassure of his preparedness to sustain the quest for the United States of Africa. Most unfortunately, he died not a long time after his decision to revive the Gaddafi project. While Ghana, Senegal, and Zimbabwe gave active support to the project, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria opposed it vehemently. And true enough again, the Maghrebin countries did not show much interest in the United States of Africa project. Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya were not much interested. They showed much interest in pan Arabism, Arab nationalism, Berberism, and Islamism.
Whatever is the intimidation by Gaddafi, the animosity of President Zuma was unnecessarily too deep to have wanted the downfall of Gaddafi. Wishing the downfall of any African leader and at the same time be talking about African unity and integration is very conflicting. This alleged intimidation by President Zuma and his wishes for the downfall of Gaddafi is also an issue in Nigeria. There has been, at least, one coup d’état aimed at removing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from power alive or dead. The coup failed. But who are the major coupists? Will the change of name of Nigeria remove the animosity vis-à-vis PBAT? This is most unlikely.
What about insecurity? There is no convincing evidence of any preparedness of Government of Nigeria since the time of President Goodluck Jonathan to nip insecurity in the bud. President Jonathan knew that there were boko haramists in his government and he told the whole world about it. The United Arab Emirates gave the identities of those funding terrorism in Nigeria to the Government of Nigeria under President Muhammadu Buhari. The Government even publicly claimed to know all the funders. In the same vein, Alhaji Sheikh Gumi, an Islamic scholar, has reportedly justified in different ramifications armed banditry and terrorism while Sheikh Gumi is claiming to be only engaged in facilitating peaceful dialogue with the terrorists to end blood-shell. As he put it, ‘I never met bandits alone’ (TVC News, 26 May, 2026).
More disturbingly again, how do we explain the case of Mrs. Grace Ogunleye, the Vice Chairman of the Ilejemeje Local Government Area in Ekiti, who reportedly stage-managed her own kidnapping in order to raise funds for political and personal financial obligations? She was declared missing following the abandonment of her vehicle on the Ipere-Iludun Ekiti Road. Police investigation, after being rescued unhurt, showed that the kidnapping was fake. This led to her arraignment on June 4, 2026 before a Chief Magistrate Court in Ado-Ekiti. Mr. Pius Dada, the Chairman of the Council said the fake kidnapping was ‘embarrassing, unfortunate, and unacceptable’ (The Premium Times Nigeria, June 4, 2026). Mrs. Ogunleye is an elected leader, and there are many Grace Ogunleyes in most Nigerians who want money by hook or by crook. Her case is still better than a Federal Government who collected funds for construction of houses that were not meant to be built. Changing of Nigeria’s name can be good but cannot be good enough to solve Nigeria’s problems. The implication of changing Nigeria’s name, if need be, is serious.
Beyond United States of America and United States of Africa
The National Anthem cannot but be the first victim of any change of name. It will no longer be ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee’ but ‘United States of Nigeria, We Hail Thee.’ In ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee,’ the operational defining word in the anthem is ‘Nigeria.’ It is in Nigeria that ‘though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand.’ In ‘United States of Nigeria,’ the operational words are ‘United States.’ Are there disunited States in Nigeria? Can Nigeria be simply referred to as U.S.? Can Africa really answer the name U.S.A. as an abbreviation? Without any whiff of doubt, it has become necessary to go beyond the politics of United States of America and the United States of Africa.
First, the life-style of the Nigerian elite is largely influenced by that of the Europeans and Americans. Socio-behaviourally, it is mostly Europeanised. Politically, it is Americanised. Nigeria has adopted the American-styled presidential system. While a true federal system can be said to exist in the United States, the same cannot be said to exist in Nigeria. We noted already in 2011 how then Governor of Lagos State, Senator Ahmed Tinubu began the struggle for a true federal system in Nigeria (vide Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed., Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Struggle for True Federalism in Nigeria (Ibadan: Vantage Publishers, 2011). Nigeria is yet to witness true federalism. In fact, it is still under PBAT that more constructive efforts are now being made to achieve true federalism with the renewed determination to devolve more powers to the constitutive states of Nigeria, especially in terms of state police.
Africa, in general, and regional organisations like the ECOWAS, in particular, pattern their political governance after the Europeans. The ECOWAS Treaty was done in the mania of the 1957 Rome Treaty that established the European Economic Community of Six. The structure of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community also followed the pattern of the Rome Treaty. For instance, when the Organisation of African Unity was in place, it was the use of Secretary-General and Secretariat that was in vogue. When the European Economic Community changed its usage from Secretary-General and Secretariat to President and Commission, African leaders also did the same thing. Thus, Africa has always been a copy-cat, an intellectual consumer.
This situation has enabled a stronger mainmise of Europe on Africa.
In this regard, is there no particular lifestyle that is peculiar to the various peoples of Nigeria that can be promoted, especially in the mania of WAZOBIA? Can there not be something like Nigeriano-authenticism? It has become necessary to live beyond the imported lifestyle of the United States of Africa, and even beyond the lifestyles of other African peoples. Let Nigeria be Nigerian in appearance, in behavior, in mentality, and sovereign in governance.
Secondly, there is the issue of security partnership. The United States of America, in collaboration with Nigerian authorities, carried out air strikes against ISIS terrorists in Nigeria on December 25, 2025 in Sokoto State. In the words of General Dagvin Anderson, the AFRICOM Commander, ‘U,S. Africa Command is working with Nigerian and regional partners to increase counterterrorism cooperation efforts related to on-going violence and threats against innocent lives.’ The air strikes were targeted at the Islamic State-Sahel (ISSP) camps which were associated with regional attacks on security forces and civilians.’ Additionally, on May 17 and 18, 2026 kinetic strikes against the ISIS in Northeastern Nigeria were also carried out. Several ISIS leaders were reportedly killed.
And perhaps more significantly, General Anderson had it that ‘AFRICOM in coordination with the Armed /forces of Nigeria, bravely and valiantly conducted a successful mission that resulted in the elimination of Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, and multiple other ISIS leaders… This operation underscores the exceptional value of the US-Nigeria partnership.’… Make no mistake, our two nations will relentlessly pursue and neutralize terrorist threats and are committed to protecting our people and interests.’
As good and exceptional the value of Nigeria-U.S. partnership might have been, there is nothing to suggest any acquisition of technology transfer, and particularly capability to neutralize insurgent terrorism on the part of Nigeria. This means that there is still the need to go beyond the so-called goodness of the partnership. The United States, as a senior partner in the collaboration, owes it a functional duty to ensure that Nigeria is able to sustain the anti-ISIS fight in the absence of the U.S. In the same vein, even if the partnership were to be on an equal footing, for as long as the ISIS is not yet completely neutralized, the success President Donald Trump is talking about is, at best, temporary. Most unfortunately, however, the success of the killing of ISIS leaders and the joint operation has not stopped ISIS attacks on innocent civilians in Nigeria and the Sahel region.
Thirdly, at the level of the United States of Nigeria, the issues involved that should first be addressed are self-destructive. There is the question of institutional corruption at all levels, particularly at the levels of the Customs, Road Safety, Internal Revenue officials who are most terrible. I make this observation based on personal experiences. I was told by the Nigeria Immigration Service to pay an import duty of N4.5 million on one Tokunbo Toyota Highlander which we duly paid through the clearing agent. One day, I was stopped along Shagamu-Ore expressway by some immigration agents who checked my vehicle particulars and told me that I did not pay fully the required import duty. I asked them why the vehicle was released to me if I had not made full payment. I never took bribe and will never give one. I was delayed and I asked for the prosecution of the case. I should not be held responsible for whatever deal that might have been struck by my clearing agent and the Immigration or Custom agents even with the sum of 2 million naira. I did not go to the port. I only learnt that the amount I paid was only N2 million when I was stopped for checking. The truth is that my vehicle was brought to my house. Why should I be punished for the stealing of government funds by government agents. I have evidence of payment of N4.5 m to my clearing agents. No United States of Nigeria can thrive on this type of self-destructive corruption.
Fourthly, I bought one Boxer Motor Cycle in April 2026 and wanted to have it officially registered. The registration official gave me a private account number into which to pay the required sum of N22,000. I asked for official receipt since it was a private account number I was required to pay into. No receipt was to be issued. In fact, I learnt there were no plate numbers to be issued since I was not prepared to pay into the account given to me. Whoever wants a registration number and accepts to pay into the private account can always have a fast-tracked service. By so doing, one is being forced to join the corruption racket. No nation-building on the basis of a society free from political chicanery is possible. Changing the name of Nigeria without first addressing the attitudinal disposition of the people is meaningless.
Fifthly, I witness the case of one electrical and solar engineer who was stopped by Road Safety officials in the Iwaraja area of Ilesha. The officials inspected his tyres and said two of them had expired. Consequently, he was issued an offence ticket because he refused to settle them. The engineer, a lecturer at the Department of Electrical and Information Engineering with the Achievers University, Owo, and who has been slated to defend his doctoral dissertation this week at the Federal University, Oye, Ekiti, went to verify the alleged expiry date of his tyres, and also went further to check the tyres of the Road Safety vehicle. He discovered that the Road Safety vehicle had all its tyres expired in 2011 compared to his own that expired in 2013. The engineer tried to take the picture of the Road Safety tyres, but the Road Safety officials vehemently opposed. This is how officials of government behave in Nigeria. This is the management of Nigeria by manu militari corruption. Change of Nigeria’s name cannot solve this type of problem. Most government officials are now financially hungry.
Sixthly, the behavior of Government at various levels cannot but be most disturbing when the Government also behaves like another hardened criminal, not to say armed robber. The Federal Government of Nigeria advertised houses to be built in between March/April 1994 and December 1994 when the allocation was to take place. People, including me, made deposits. My wife took a Universal Trust Bank salary advance to make up for the new deposit when Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande was replaced by General Abdulkareem Adisa as Minister of Works and Housing. Alhaji Jakande wanted to build a three-bedroom semi-detached house for only N200,000. A deposit of 20% was required and the houses were to be built not by award of contracts, but by direct labour.
General Abdulkareem Adisa jacked up the building cost to N800,000, hence the required deposit of N40,000 was increased to N160,000. Lateef Jakande who honestly wanted to provide accommodation for the needy was prevented from doing so. General Adisa took over and since 1994, no house was built, hence no allocation of houses could take place. No refund of deposit to me. No information is given on the situation. From 1994 to 2026, we have 32 years of very fraudulent silence on the part of the Federal Government. Yet the Government is preaching the sermon of patriotism and national unity. How can the Government be defrauding the people and at the same time be asking the people to be patriotic and united? Why are we changing the name of Nigeria to give the impression that no crime had been committed by Nigeria against depositors of money with Nigeria? Does the United States of Nigeria want to claim innocence of the fraud against the people?
Seventhly, in 2004, then President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced the policy of monetization. Houses occupied by civil and public servants were sold to them if they had evidence of having lived in their official quarters for, at least, six months before the introduction of the policy. My quarters was sold to me and I paid for it fully at once. Official remissness, driven by apparent corruption saga, has not enabled the issuance of the relevant Certificate of Occupancy. But it is most convenient for the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, to always threaten to retrieve ownership of legitimately acquired land and houses simply for non-payment of land use. And unfortunately too, no Nigerian is showing concerns about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Government. I have refused to ‘settle’ anyone the Nigerian way in order to secure my Certificate of Occupancy because I purchased and fully paid for my accommodation. What type of a new Nigeria with a new name are we talking about when the Government has not been able to issue Certificate of Occupancy to buyers since 2004 or since more than 24 years? One really needs to go beyond the culture of treating ‘làpálàpá’ (wring worm) while ignoring ‘ètè’ (leprosy) in the governance of Nigeria.
Finally, besides, what really does the government want to tell the people of Nigeria when the House of Representatives passed a bill that makes it impossible to challenge politicians accused of fraudulent certificates? Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides that no court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or matter concerning the internal matters of a political party, especially in disputes over party leadership, membership, and internal nominations. As good-intentioned as the rationales for the law may be to stop frivolous litigation – stopping the granting of interim or interlocutory injunctions, as well as payment of mandatory fines for a violation of this law – the main problem is that the law enables silence over internal practices in the political parties. This is directly telling political parties to engage in various electoral malpractices. What happens to party crimes?
An eventual change of name from Nigeria to United States of Nigeria is not likely to address the problem of inequality of protection, inequality of dignity, and inequality of treatment under the rule of law, which have characterised political governance in Nigeria under the Fourth Republic. A change of name will not stop, but strengthen, boko haramism and agitations for separation. Consequently, it is a desideratum to stop copying Europe and the United States of America, as well as overcome the challenges militating against the making of a United States of Africa. Seeking to change the name of Nigeria to United States of Nigeria has merits and demerits. However, whatever the merits and demerits, the new name does not have the potential to remove the factors of national disunity and disintegration, There are also the reasons of many languages and religions, institutional corruption, unending conflicts, civil unrest, tribalism, as well as increasing level of poverty. We strongly believe that the objective of a United States of Africa cannot but remain a dream. In the same vein, the making of a united and enduring United States of Nigeria cannot thrive for as long as the approach to national unity is by manu militari. National unity must never be coercive as a policy as it is provided for in the 1999 Constitution as amended. The Constitution provides for indivisibility and indivisibility of Nigeria, meaning force must be used to enforce national unity. Use of force only engenders civil war. United States of Nigeria, if it is to be, must not be coercive. Doing so is futility.