Nigeria does not lack a development vision. What it lacks is the discipline to govern by the one it already chose. Embedded in its constitution is a clearly articulated social mandate that defines the material purpose of the Nigerian state: to secure education, healthcare, decent work, social protection, environmental welfare, and equitable access to national resources. Over time, this mandate has been relegated to rhetorical ornamentation, invoked ceremonially, ignored operationally. As poverty deepens and social trust erodes, Nigeria’s challenge is no longer conceptual. It is institutional and political.
This constitutional social mandate was born out of crisis. In the aftermath of the civil war, Nigeria’s leaders understood that unity could not survive on symbolism alone. National cohesion required tangible improvements in everyday life. The state, therefore, committed itself, at least on paper, to a developmental purpose grounded in social justice and shared prosperity. That commitment remains formally intact. Its sustained neglect, however, has produced a governance culture that treats development outcomes as optional rather than foundational.
At its core, this social mandate defines what government success should look like in practical terms. It obliges the state to prioritise human capital, protect labour, reduce inequality, and manage national wealth in ways that expand opportunity. It was never intended to function as a catalogue of courtroom rights. Rather, it was designed as a policy compass, meant to guide legislation, budgeting, and long-term planning toward improving living standards and strengthening the social contract.
Read also: Understanding the foundation of Nigeria’s development crisis
Its dismissal as a mere aspiration has rested largely on legal technicalities. Because these commitments are not directly enforceable in court, they have been treated as politically expendable. This narrow reading reflects a broader governance problem: Nigeria has often confused legal enforceability with policy relevance. What cannot be litigated is assumed to be non-binding, even when it defines the very purpose of the state.
That dismissal was reinforced by the global intellectual climate of the 1980s and 1990s. Structural adjustment programmes privileged fiscal restraint, market primacy, and a reduced social role for the state. Developmental obligations were reframed as inefficiencies. Nigeria absorbed this logic without revisiting whether it was compatible with its own constitutional settlement. The result was a persistent contradiction: a constitution that promises social welfare and a policy regime that treats it as fiscally inconvenient.
Global thinking has since moved on. State investment in education, health, and social protection, once derided as statist excess, is now recognised as essential to growth, resilience, and stability. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals reflect this consensus. Ironically, Nigeria’s constitutional social mandate anticipated this shift decades earlier. The problem, therefore, is not that Nigeria lacks a modern development framework, but that it refuses to operationalise its own.
The cost of this refusal is no longer abstract. Multidimensional poverty now affects a majority of Nigerians. Education outcomes remain fragile, with millions of children excluded from formal schooling. Weak human capital continues to constrain productivity and growth. These conditions are not merely social failures; they are governance failures. They undermine legitimacy, fuel insecurity, and weaken democratic consent.
Debates that remain fixated on whether these constitutional commitments are justiciable increasingly miss the point. Courts are not the only instruments of accountability in a constitutional democracy. Where judicial enforcement is limited, political, fiscal, and administrative mechanisms must compensate. Treating the social mandate as non-operational because it is non-justiciable has allowed governments to evade responsibility while maintaining a constitutional appearance.
Read also:Â Why spending alone cannot buy security or development
A more pragmatic approach begins with embedding this social mandate at the centre of national planning. Development plans routinely reference constitutional objectives in their preambles but rarely translate them into binding priorities, expenditure benchmarks, or measurable outcomes. This inversion must change. National plans and annual budgets should be explicitly evaluated against the state’s social obligations, not merely macroeconomic targets. Education access, healthcare coverage, housing adequacy, and income security should function as core performance indicators, not aspirational footnotes.
Fiscal federalism is equally critical. Because these obligations cut across federal, state, and local responsibilities, coordination, not litigation, is the decisive constraint. Conditional fiscal transfers tied to outcomes in school enrolment, primary healthcare, nutrition, or social protection would align incentives across tiers of government. States that deliver measurable improvements should be rewarded with greater fiscal flexibility, while persistent underperformance should trigger corrective oversight.
Regional collaboration also offers underused potential. Interstate compacts on food security, environmental management, and public health could pool capacity, reduce duplication, and address problems that ignore administrative boundaries. Nigeria’s uneven development record is less a failure of ideas than a failure of coordination.
Comparative experience reinforces this approach. Countries that adopted similar directive social commitments did not treat them as ideological declarations. In India, they shaped welfare expansion through varied institutional pathways. In Ireland, they informed social protection models adapted to the national context. In each case, the principles functioned as anchors for policy coherence rather than obstacles to markets or democracy.
The Nigerian debate often assumes a false binary: that social commitments threaten fiscal sustainability or private enterprise. Evidence suggests the opposite. Weak human capital, fragile health systems, and entrenched inequality impose long-term economic costs that markets alone cannot correct. Social investment, when governed well, expands productivity, stabilises societies, and reduces the fiscal burden of crisis management.
Read also:How Nigeria can remodel debt crisis for long-term development
The deeper issue, therefore, is political will. Activating Nigeria’s social mandate would require governments to accept that legitimacy depends not only on electoral cycles or macroeconomic indicators, but on whether citizens experience tangible improvements in their lives. It would require shifting from symbolic constitutionalism to performance-based governance.
Nigeria’s Constitution already answers the question of what the state exists to do. The challenge before the country is whether it is prepared to govern as though that answer still matters. Reclaiming this forgotten social mandate would not solve every problem overnight. But it would restore coherence to development policy, discipline public spending, and begin rebuilding a social contract that has been eroded by decades of selective implementation.
Unity, as Awolowo warned, was never meant to be an end in itself. It was meant to deliver a better life. That promise remains unfulfilled, not because it was poorly conceived, but because it has been consistently ignored.
