President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may have intended to offer straightforward governance advice when he urged state governors to focus less on grand infrastructure projects and more on addressing the immediate needs of ordinary Nigerians. Instead, his remarks may have ignited a much broader conversation, not only about governors’ priorities but also about the Federal Government’s own choices.
The President made the comments while receiving traditional rulers from Oyo State led by the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, who visited the Presidential Villa to thank him for the successful rescue of pupils and staff abducted from Oriire Local Government Area after nearly 50 traumatic days in captivity.
While commending the security agencies, Tinubu advised governors to devote greater attention to the “felt needs” of their people rather than projects that may be visually impressive but have little immediate impact on citizens’ welfare.
Although he mentioned no governor by name, many interpreted the remarks as an indirect criticism of Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, now one of the country’s leading opposition figures ahead of the 2027 elections.
That perception was reinforced by Makinde’s disclosure during the Oriire kidnapping crisis that despite the gravity of the situation, he had been unable to speak directly with President Tinubu, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The revelation exposed one of the enduring contradictions in Nigeria’s federal structure.
Governors are routinely described as the chief security officers of their states, yet operational control of the police, military and other security agencies remains firmly in Abuja. Governors fund logistics, provide intelligence, purchase equipment and finance security operations, but they cannot independently deploy the forces they help sustain. It is a constitutional anomaly that has fuelled repeated calls for state police and a restructuring of Nigeria’s security architecture.
If Tinubu’s remarks were indeed directed at Makinde, supporters of the Oyo governor would point to his administration’s investment in surveillance aircraft and other security assets. Whether those investments have substantially improved security is open to debate, but they underscore how states increasingly spend scarce resources on responsibilities constitutionally assigned to the Federal Government.
Beyond the politics, however, the President’s comments raise a larger question.
Most governors belong to Tinubu’s own All Progressives Congress, yet insecurity remains widespread in many APC-controlled states despite increased revenues following fuel subsidy removal. The issue is therefore national rather than partisan.
It also raises a fundamental policy question: who determines which infrastructure projects are essential and which are extravagant?
A flyover may appear unnecessary to one observer but could eliminate decades of traffic bottlenecks, reduce transport costs and stimulate commerce. Likewise, investments in hospitals, schools or irrigation may yield even greater social returns. Governance is rarely about choosing between good and bad projects; it is about balancing competing priorities with limited resources.
The same standard inevitably invites scrutiny of the Federal Government itself.
No project better illustrates the debate than the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway. The government sees it as a transformative investment that will reshape Nigeria’s coastal economy, stimulate tourism, expand trade and create jobs. Critics, however, ask whether the billions committed to the project could have been deployed more urgently to strengthen security, improve healthcare, rehabilitate existing highways or modernise the nation’s electricity infrastructure.
The argument is neither frivolous nor partisan. It is rooted in the economic principle of opportunity cost.
Indeed, the condition of many existing federal roads lends weight to that argument. Only recently, your correspondent travelled through the Abuja-Makurdi highway, commissioned just a few years ago, and found disturbing stretches already showing significant deterioration despite reported maintenance arrangements with the original contractors. Similar concerns trail the East-West Road. For many Nigerians, maintaining existing infrastructure should rank alongside constructing ambitious new projects.
Development economists have consistently argued that infrastructure spending delivers its greatest benefits only when matched by investments in security, education, healthcare and effective institutions.
Tinubu’s remarks therefore reopen familiar but unresolved questions about Nigeria’s federal arrangement.
If governors are expected to shoulder greater responsibility for security because they now receive higher allocations, should they not also be granted constitutional authority over policing? If states increasingly finance responsibilities that properly belong to the Federal Government, should the existing sharing of powers and revenues not also be revisited?
These are not new questions. What is new is that the President himself has inadvertently breathed fresh life into them.
Perhaps Tinubu is fortunate that today’s Nigeria Governors’ Forum lacks the combative spirit of earlier years. There was a time when governors such as Rotimi Amaechi, then chairman of the Governors’ Forum, would have rallied colleagues across party lines to challenge the Presidency on issues of fiscal federalism, constitutional powers and resource allocation. Those confrontations often produced vigorous national debates. Today’s governors appear considerably more restrained, even when many privately express frustration over growing federal expectations.
Still, silence should never be mistaken for consensus.
Tinubu’s advice has touched one of the most sensitive questions in Nigeria’s federation: who should bear responsibility for securing lives and property, and who should possess the constitutional authority and resources to discharge that responsibility effectively?
Until Nigeria honestly addresses that imbalance, appeals to governors to solve problems over which they exercise only limited constitutional authority will continue to provoke legitimate debate.
Sometimes, what appears to be a routine presidential remark becomes the catalyst for a much larger national conversation. President Tinubu’s advice to governors may well prove to be one of those moments, not because the advice was necessarily misplaced, but because it has compelled Nigerians to ask whether every tier of government is applying the same standards to itself that it expects of the others.
The post Can Tinubu Advice Governors On What He Controls? By Emmanuel Aziken appeared first on Vanguard News.