"Yoruba Ronu."

Few expressions have become as common in contemporary Yoruba political discourse.

Yet, through constant repetition, the phrase has almost lost the force of its original meaning.

It did not begin as a slogan.
It was Hubert Ogunde's famous song of political admonition during the existential crisis that engulfed the old Western Region in the ideological contest between the progressive movement led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the conservative tendency led by Chief S. L. Akintola.

Ogunde took sides.
His song was banned.
The issues he raised were never buried.
That is why the question before us today is not whether Yoruba should "Ronu."

The real question is:
What should Yoruba "Ronu" about?
The answer is simple.
Federalism. Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria

Not politics.
Not personalities.
Not political parties.
Federalism.
It is both fortunate and unfortunate that this question confronts us under a Yoruba President, a Yoruba Leader of the Senate, a Yoruba Inspector-General of Police, a Yoruba Chairman of INEC, and several other Yoruba occupying strategic national offices.

Fortunate, because no nationality in Nigeria has consistently advocated True Federalism more than the Yoruba.

Unfortunate, because this may become the very generation under whose watch the idea of True Federalism is quietly buried,not by open opposition, but by its imitation.

The prevailing argument today is that the Tinubu Administration is gradually building True Federalism through a series of policy initiatives.

We disagree.
Fundamentally.
Federalism is not the cumulative result of government policies.

Federalism is the Constitutional foundation upon which government policies rest.

Roads do not produce Federalism.
Federalism determines who builds the roads.
State Police does not produce federalism.
Federalism determines who possesses policing powers.

Development Commissions do not produce Federalism.
Federalism determines who has Constitutional authority to undertake development.

Policies may come and go.
Federalism defines the relationship between governments before a single policy is ever conceived.

That is why Federalism cannot be reached by "working towards the answer."

It either exists Constitutionally or it does not.
This distinction has become increasingly blurred by the argument that Nigeria's Federalism is "unique."

Every Federation may indeed possess unique characteristics.

But no Federation escapes the defining principle of Federalism:

The Constituent units are not administrative conveniences of the centre.

They are the political foundations upon which the Federation itself rests.

The centre exists because the Federating units created it-not the other way round.

That is the issue Yoruba must now think about.
Three current developments illustrate the danger of confusing centralization with Federalism.

Local Government "Autonomy"
The Supreme Court's decision on Local Government funding has been celebrated as decentralization.

It is nothing of the sort.
A Local Government derives its existence territorially and Constitutionally from the State within which it exists.

It cannot become a third Federating Unit merely because the Federal Government now funds it directly.

Indeed, direct dependence upon Abuja makes Local Government more susceptible to political influence from the centre.

That is centralization.
Not Federalism.
The Federal Government possesses no territory of its own.

Its authority derives from the territories constituting the Federation.

Local Government therefore exists within the State.

It cannot logically become a separate Constitutional pillar of the Federation.

To describe it as the third tier of a Federation is to perpetuate the military Constitutional philosophy inherited by the 1979, 1989 and ultimately the 1999 Constitution.

The South-West Development Commission
The South-West Development Commission provides another example.

The Commission sought to pursue a regional railway system as an economic necessity.

It was told to rely upon the existing colonial railway system administered by the Nigerian Railway Corporation.

A region that cannot determine the technical direction of its own transportation infrastructure possesses limited developmental autonomy.

Development cannot flourish where Constitutional authority remains centralized.

That is not regional development.
It is centrally supervised administration.
State Police
The proposed State Police Bill illustrates the problem even more clearly.

The principal reason Nigerians demanded State Police was insecurity driven by terrorism, organized violence, banditry and politically motivated criminality.

Yet the proposed Constitutional arrangement reserves terrorism, treason, interstate crimes and protection of Federal infrastructure almost entirely to the Federal Police.

The States are left principally with conventional crimes such as armed robbery, homicide, domestic violence and local offences.

This raises an unavoidable question.
If terrorism remains the exclusive preserve of the Federal Police, what exactly has changed?

Even more curious is the absence of any meaningful Constitutional treatment of "banditry"-the very expression repeatedly employed by government itself in describing the security crisis.

If armed groups operating across state boundaries continue to fall outside meaningful State Police authority, Governors will still depend upon Abuja whenever the most serious threats emerge.

That is administrative decentralization.
It is not Constitutional Federalism.
The Constitutional Question
The issue before Nigeria therefore extends beyond Local Government, Development Commissions or State Police.

The issue is Constitutional.
The Nigerian State continues to centralize fundamental powers while presenting administrative adjustments as evidence of Federalization.

That reverses the Constitutional logic.
Federalism is not produced by central government generosity.

Federalism begins by recognizing that the constituent peoples and their territorial units possess original Constitutional authority.

The centre administers powers voluntarily entrusted to it.

It does not manufacture those powers for distribution.

That is why the perennial Yoruba demand has never been merely for improved governance.

It has been for Constitutional Re-Formation.
It is therefore significant that Chief Wole Olanipekun called for an Autochthonous Constitution via Referendums conducted by the Federating Units, a process capable of conferring genuine legitimacy upon the Nigerian State.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of that proposal is secondary.

The fundamental point remains.
Constitutions create States.
Policies administer them.
To confuse the two is to mistake administration for nation-building.

Some will ask whether this amounts to opposition to President Tinubu.

It does not.
It is an appeal to history.
No generation of Yoruba leaders has come closer to advancing the Constitutional ideals consistently championed by the Yoruba people.

Precisely for that reason, no generation bears a greater responsibility.

If, under a Yoruba Presidency, the Constitutional architecture of Nigeria becomes even more centralized while being presented as Federalization, future generations will rightly ask whether we mistook administrative reform for Constitutional Federalism.

Hubert Ogunde's admonition therefore remains as relevant today as when he first sang it.

The personalities have changed.
The Constitutional question has not.
So, when next someone says:
"Yoruba Ronu."
This is what Yoruba must think about.
Not whether government has introduced another policy.

But whether the Constitutional foundation upon which all policies rest is truly federal.

That is the question.
And until it is answered, Yoruba must indeed Ronu.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee