Delta State Governor Sheriff Oborevwori’s proposal for a legally backed national dialogue every 10 years has reignited debate over Nigeria’s long history of national conferences and their effectiveness in addressing the country’s political and structural challenges.
Speaking during the centenary lecture of the Yoruba Tennis Club in Lagos, Oborevwori argued that Nigeria should move away from crisis-driven conferences and instead establish a permanent and structured dialogue system supported by law and institutional oversight.
The governor proposed a framework built around three key areas: legislative backing for conference resolutions, the creation of an independent secretariat to monitor implementation, and dedicated funding for agreed reforms and national cohesion projects.
According to him, resolutions reached during such conferences should be forwarded directly to the National Assembly for consideration and possible conversion into law, preventing them from being abandoned after political transitions.
He also advocated the establishment of a non-partisan body responsible for tracking implementation progress and publishing regular accountability reports.
Political analysts and governance experts, however, expressed differing opinions on the practicality of the proposal.
Professor Kamal Bello of the National Open University of Nigeria argued that national conferences are traditionally emergency mechanisms designed to address urgent problems and should not become routine events held on a fixed schedule.
He maintained that Nigeria’s major challenge lies not in the absence of dialogue but in poor implementation of existing recommendations and policies.
Similarly, governance researcher Adejumo Kabir questioned the proposed 10-year cycle, suggesting that a shorter four-year interval tied to the electoral cycle would better reflect Nigeria’s rapidly changing political realities.
Other analysts, including Professor Sylvester Akhaine of Lagos State University, defended the importance of dialogue, stressing that institutional safeguards could help prevent future governments from discarding conference recommendations as seen in previous administrations.
The debate also highlighted concerns about representation and inclusion, with calls for ordinary citizens, youths, women, farmers, entrepreneurs, and civil society groups to play a more active role in future national discussions rather than leaving the process dominated by political elites.
Supporters of the proposal believe a structured national dialogue could help reduce political tension, improve governance, and strengthen national unity if properly implemented.
However, critics insist that without genuine political will, even constitutionally backed conferences may struggle to produce lasting results.
