By Sonny Iroche
In the tapestry of modern democracies, few threads are as intricate as federalism, the delicate balance of power between central authority and subnational entities. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and a federal republic since its independence in 1960, has long modeled its governance after the United States, the cradle of modern federalism. Both countries operate under presidential systems, where an elected executive wields significant influence while sharing sovereignty with states. Yet, as Nigeria grapples with electoral turbulence and calls for reform ahead of future polls, a comparative lens reveals stark similarities and divergences. This article explores the devolution of powers, the nuances of presidential practice, and electoral administration in both nations. It also probes Nigeria’s historical electoral scars, the annulled June 12, 1993, election and the contentious 2023 vote, while spotlighting the recent nomination of Professor Joash Amupitan as INEC chairman. Finally, it argues that if Nigeria emulates the American model, it must do so holistically, with amendments that surpass U.S. shortcomings, perhaps through innovative tools like artificial intelligence (AI).
At its core, federalism in both countries aims to accommodate diversity within unity. The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1788, established a system where states retain “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.” This “dual federalism” evolved into “cooperative federalism,” with states handling education, policing, and local infrastructure, while the federal government oversees defense, foreign affairs, and interstate commerce. Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) mirrors this in Chapter 1, declaring a “Federal Republic” with 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory. Exclusive federal powers include currency, aviation, and prisons, while concurrent lists cover health, education, and agriculture, and residual powers fall to states.
Devolution of powers, however, reveals profound differences rooted in history and scale. The U.S. federal system emerged from 13 sovereign colonies wary of centralized tyranny post-British rule, fostering robust state autonomy. States generate significant revenue through property taxes and sales levies, contributing to a fiscal federalism where federal grants-in-aid (about 30% of state budgets) encourage cooperation without coercion. This has enabled innovations like California’s environmental regulations or Texas’s energy policies, often influencing national standards.
Nigeria’s federalism, by contrast, is more unitary in practice, a legacy of military rule that centralized control to manage ethnic tensions. The federal government controls over 50% of revenue via oil, distributing it through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), leaving states dependent on allocations, often delayed or politicized. This “fiscal centralism” stifles state initiative; governors, while powerful executives, lack the fiscal muscle to devolve meaningfully to local governments, which receive a mere 20.6% of revenues but are often starved of autonomy. Similarities abound in bicameral legislatures, the U.S. Congress and Nigeria’s National Assembly, both designed to balance regional interests. Yet, Nigeria’s Senate, with three senators per state, amplifies smaller states’ voices more than the U.S. equal-per-state representation, though gerrymandering plagues both.
The presidential system further underscores these parallels and pitfalls. In both nations, the president is head of state and government, elected indirectly via an electoral college in the U.S. (requiring 270 of 538 electors) and directly in Nigeria (needing 25% in two-thirds of states plus a plurality). Checks and balances are enshrined: presidents veto legislation, but Congress or the National Assembly can override; judiciaries interpret laws independently. Similarities shine in executive dominance, U.S. presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded powers through New Deal agencies, akin to Nigerian presidents’ control over security and economy.
Differences emerge in practice. American presidents face an “imperial” critique for war powers and executive orders, but congressional oversight and federalism dilute this; state governors often defy federal mandates, as seen in marijuana legalization despite federal prohibition. Nigeria’s system, however, tilts toward “imperial presidency” due to weak institutions. Corruption scandals in Nigeria, like those involving past administrations, erode trust, contrasting the U.S.’s more robust anti-corruption mechanisms via independent prosecutors.
Electoral administration epitomizes these disparities, particularly in appointing officials. Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) centralizes federal and state elections under one body, with the chairman appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This includes 37 resident electoral commissioners (one per state and FCT), appointed by the president on INEC’s recommendation, ensuring national uniformity but risking executive interference. INEC oversees voter registration, ballot issuance, and result collation for all levels, a “one-stop shop” model that streamlines but centralizes power perilously.
The U.S. eschews such centralization, embodying true federal devolution. No national electoral body exists; the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulates only campaign finance, with commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate in bipartisan fashion.
Actual elections, voter rolls, polling, certification, are state prerogatives. Each of 50 states has a chief election official, often the secretary of state (elected in 36 states, appointed in others by governors), answerable to state legislatures. This decentralization fosters innovation, like early voting in Florida or mail-in ballots in Oregon, but invites inconsistencies, as in 2000’s Florida recount fiasco.
If Nigeria tries to mirror the U.S., it must adopt this decentralized system fully, not superficially. Amending the 1999 Constitution to empower State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) with full autonomy, appointing their own officials without federal veto, would devolve power genuinely. Yet, improvements could eclipse the U.S.: Mandate national standards for technology (e.g., biometric verification) while allowing state experimentation, creating a hybrid “cooperative electoral federalism.” This would address Nigeria’s over-centralization, where INEC’s national grip often delays state polls, as in recent off-cycle governorship elections.
Nigeria’s electoral history underscores the urgency.
The June 12, 1993, presidential election, widely regarded as the freest, saw Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola of the Social Democratic Party triumph with 58% of votes. Yet, the military administration of General Ibrahim Babangida annulled it amid spurious “logistics” claims, triggering protests and Abiola’s 1998 imprisonment, cementing June 12 as Democracy Day but exposing military meddling’s scars.
Fast-forward to 2023: Bola Tinubu’s victory (37% of 8.8 million valid votes) was marred by technical glitches in the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), low turnout (27%), vote-buying allegations, and opposition petitions alleging rigging. Misinformation flooded social media, with deepfakes and false claims amplifying ethnic divides; violence claimed over 100 lives pre-poll. The Supreme Court upheld Tinubu’s win, but public faith in INEC plummeted to 23%, per Afrobarometer surveys.
Into this breach steps Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, nominated by President Tinubu on October 9, 2025, as INEC chairman succeeding Professor Mahmood Yakubu, whose second term ends November 2025. The 58-year-old University of Jos law professor, from Kogi State, earned quick National Council of State approval and praise from civil society for his “apolitical” credentials and expertise in constitutional law. Yet, critics decry the presidential appointment process as inherently flawed, urging a bipartisan panel for future selections to mimic U.S. FEC balance. Amupitan’s tenure, if confirmed by Senate, arrives amid INEC’s push for state-level appointment control, signaling reform intent.
To transcend these cycles, Nigeria must innovate beyond the U.S. model. Constitutional amendments should entrench devolved electoral bodies with fiscal independence, funded via a dedicated national pool akin to U.S. Help America Vote Act grants. Transparency mandates, real-time result uploads, mandatory audits, would build trust, outpacing U.S. vulnerabilities like gerrymandering.
Enter AI: A game-changer for Nigeria’s polls. INEC’s May 2025 launch of an AI Division marks a milestone, targeting voter registration and fraud detection. AI could revolutionize biometric verification, using machine learning to flag duplicates in real-time, reducing the 2023 BVAS failures that disenfranchised millions. Predictive analytics might forecast violence hotspots, deploying security proactively, as piloted in Kenya’s 2022 elections. For monitoring, AI-powered apps like NaijaElections’ generative tool could debunk deepfakes instantly, countering 2023’s misinformation surge.
Deploying AI experts nationwide, via a National Electoral AI Corps, trained at federal tech hubs and embedded in state commissions, ensures equitable rollout. Ethical safeguards, per global standards, would mitigate biases in algorithms trained on skewed data. Blockchain-AI hybrids for tamper-proof voting, as explored in Estonia, could secure transmission, surpassing U.S. paper-ballot reliance. Pilot in off-cycle 2026 polls, scaling to 2027.
In conclusion, Nigeria’s federal republic, while inspired by America’s, demands bold evolution. By devolving powers authentically, insulating elections from executive whim, and harnessing AI, Nigeria can forge a system not just copied, but improved, one where democracy thrives amid diversity. As Amupitan assumes the helm, the onus is on leaders to heal old wounds and illuminate a credible path forward. The world’s largest black democracy deserves no less.
Wishing Professor Amupitan a flawless reign as Nigeria and the entire world look forward to credible and as near accurate election results as possible.
NB: Sonny Iroche is the CEO of GenAI Learning Concepts Ltd , a pioneer AI consulting company in Nigeria.
• Senior Academic Fellow at the African Studies Centre of the University of Oxford (2022–2023).
• Holds a Postgraduate degree in AI from Saïd Business School, University of Oxford.
• Member, Nigeria National AI Strategy Committee.
• Member, UNESCO Technical Working Group on AI Readiness Assessment Methodology.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonnyiroche
