The proposed constitutional amendment by Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, which seeks to grant indigene status to individuals who have resided in a state for ten years or married a native, has ignited deep controversy across Nigeria.
Though it is promoted as a progressive move for national unity, the bill poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s federal structure, peace, and inter-ethnic coexistence. It reopens ideological wounds from the past, threatens ancestral sovereignty, and risks sparking political and ethnic conflict under the guise of inclusion.
A Direct Threat to Indigenous Harmony
Nigeria’s identity as a federation is rooted in the recognition of its diverse ethnic nationalities. Indigeneity is not a matter of administrative convenience—it is a sacred cultural and historical bond between people and land. Granting this status based on mere length of stay or marriage undermines this bond and sets the stage for future conflict.
This bill will not bring harmony. Instead, it will pit communities against one another. Settlers may seek to claim political power in host communities, marginalizing the original inhabitants. The potential for electoral manipulation and cultural erosion is immense.
Political Tensions Will Follow
Allowing non-indigenes to vote or run for office in states where they are not ancestrally connected would lead to serious political complications. Non-indigenes should vote in their states of origin, where their cultural and historical identity lies. To do otherwise is to create a situation where outsiders may legislate or govern communities they neither fully understand nor belong to—leading to resentment, unrest, and even violence.
International Lessons: Global Practices Favor Indigenous Rights
To understand the dangers of this bill, we must examine how other multi-ethnic or federal nations protect their indigenous populations and political structures.
* United States of America
The U.S., despite being a melting pot, maintains strict state-based voting residency laws. A person must register and vote only in the state where they are legally domiciled. However, Native American tribes have reserved lands and unique rights that cannot be encroached upon, no matter how long a non-tribal person lives there. Indigenous status is not transferable by marriage or duration of residence.
Moreover, local control is fiercely protected—a New Yorker cannot run for state office in Texas just by living there for a while. The respect for local autonomy remains central to America’s union.
* Spain
Spain is a decentralized country with autonomous regions like Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Galicia. These regions maintain cultural and linguistic identity and have strong control over who can access their institutions. Residency does not automatically confer cultural or political integration.
Attempts to override these identities—like Madrid’s heavy-handed response to Catalonia’s independence drive—sparked international outcry and massive protests. Spain’s challenges show the volatility that comes with undermining ethnic and regional identity.
* United Arab Emirates (UAE) – Dubai
Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the UAE, hosts millions of long-term residents who have lived and worked there for decades. Yet citizenship and political participation are strictly reserved for Emirati nationals. Long-term expatriates, even if married to citizens or born there, do not gain political rights. The UAE understands the importance of preserving national identity amidst global diversity.
* India
India, a federal republic with strong state identities, reserves “domicile” status for those with ancestral roots in a state. For instance, in Jammu & Kashmir, domicile status historically included only those who could trace their lineage back to the state. This was recently changed, but not without widespread unrest and accusations of demographic engineering.
India’s experience shows that tampering with indigenous rights triggers deep-seated tensions in plural societies.
* Switzerland
Switzerland is composed of 26 cantons (states), each with considerable autonomy. Residency alone does not grant political rights in most cantons. Citizens are expected to contribute locally but must go through strict naturalization processes that include demonstrating cultural integration and language proficiency before accessing full rights. Even then, citizenship is granted first at the commune level, emphasizing local consent and cultural belonging.
Key Takeaways
Across the world, pluralistic societies and federations uphold cultural and ancestral identity as core components of governance and inclusion. They protect these rights through clear legal boundaries that differentiate between residency and citizenship, between contribution and political control.
Nigeria cannot afford to abandon this principle.
Recommendations
a). The National Assembly must reject Hon. Kalu’s bill. It is constitutionally destabilizing, culturally insensitive, and ideologically provocative.
b). Indigene status should remain tied to ancestry and lineage. Residency and marriage are insufficient bases for political rights at the local level.
c). Non-indigenes should fulfill civic duties in their states of origin. This ensures fairness, reduces tension, and preserves peace.
d). Traditional institutions and cultural leaders must rise in defense of indigenous identity.
e). A national conversation on identity and federalism is urgent. Nigeria’s ethnic nations must reaffirm mutual respect without coercion or manipulation.
Conclusion
Hon. Kalu’s Indigene Bill may wear the cloak of inclusion, but it carries the sword of centralization. It revives old ambitions that once fractured the country and caused untold suffering. Nigeria’s survival depends on protecting what makes it unique: a federation of proud, distinct nations. Unity must come through respect—not assimilation. This bill must not just be debated—it must be defeated.
Princess Dr. G. Adebajo-Fraser MFR
The National Patriots.
“Why Hon. Kalu’s Indigene Bill Threatens Nigeria’s Federal Stability” – UK Member of Parliament.
“Preserving Identity: The Case Against Residency-Based Indigene Status” – Princess G. Adebajo-Fraser MFR
“Federalism Under Siege: A Constitutional Challenge to Nigeria’s Diversity” – Dr. Imran Khazaly Headlinenews.news.
“Rejecting the Trojan Horse: A National Response to the Indigene Bill” – Elder Statesman
“You Can’t Legislate Heritage” – US Congressman.
“Ten Years Is Not Ancestry”
Distinguished Senator.
“Marriage Is Not Indigeneity” –
Aisha Mohammed.
“Nigeria Is a Mosaic, Not a Melting Pot” –
Prof. Toluwase.
“From Ironsi to Kalu: The Return of Unitarist Ambitions?” – Barr. Olawale.
“We Remember the Civil War—And This Bill Must Not Pass” – Ahmadu Bello.
“Lessons from History: Why Federalism Must Be defended ” –
– UK Member of Parliament.
Quotes to support the position of this report by members of the international community, Nigeria’s intelligentsia, Academia and concerned citizens after reading the report.
