Internal colonialism is a concept used by political scientists and sociologists to describe the exploitation and domination of certain regions or ethnic groups within a nation-state, much like classical colonial powers exploited overseas territories. According to Michael Hechter, internal colonialism occurs when economic, political, and cultural structures favor one region or group over others, resulting in systemic inequalities. Hechter emphasized that the peripheral regions are exploited for their resources while receiving little in return, and their populations are often politically marginalized.
Robert Blauner observed that internal colonialism is characterized by economic extraction, uneven development, and cultural subjugation within the same political unit. In post-independence Africa, many countries have witnessed internal colonialism as the new national elites, often concentrated in certain ethnic or regional blocs, retained or reintroduced patterns of resource and power concentration, marginalizing peripheral regions.
In Nigeria, a semblance of internal colonialism tried to emerge during General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi’s regime through Decree No. 34, which sought to abolish the federal structure of the country and centralize power in the federal government. This decree was widely perceived as favoring some regions while undermining the autonomy and interests of others. Many Nigerians across the federation rightly rejected it, seeing it as a direct threat to regional balance and fairness.
Historians and political analysts agree that this centralization of power was one of the major reasons that led to General Ironsi’s overthrow, demonstrating that Nigerians have historically resisted policies that promote the domination of one region over others.
Since independence, Nigerian federalism has formally respected the principle of federal character, aiming to ensure equitable representation in employment, project distribution, and industrial siting. Extractive industries such as refineries, steel rolling mills, and timber processing plants have historically been sited in resource-producing areas to ensure regional benefit. Examples include Port Harcourt, Warri, Ajaokuta, and Jos, where raw materials are processed locally rather than centralized in one region.
In the energy sector, major power plants have respected the source-siting principle, with operational facilities in Kainji, Sapele, Shiroro, and even the bogus Mambila project, demonstrating a commitment to balanced national development. These practices were designed to avoid the exploitation of some regions while favoring others and to prevent the concentration of economic power in any single geopolitical zone.
Under President Tinubu, Nigeria’s unity has taken on a perilous trajectory. The administration has displayed a lopsided populating of key federal appointments in the military, ministries, parastatals, and ambassadorial positions with individuals predominantly of Yoruba extraction. This ethnically skewed approach undermines the federal character principle and marginalizes other regions in governance.
Equally concerning is the siting of federal projects under Tinubu. The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, costing humongous sums of money, remains ongoing and being reviewed for further allocations. Many different projects with disproportionate allocation of resources to Lagos have been created.
Additionally, there are reports of federal parastatals, including departments in the CBN and the Bank of Industry, being moved to Lagos under the pretext of “want of space,” despite having large and underutilized structures in Abuja. The administration has also announced the splitting of the Nigerian School of Aviation Technology, Zaria, and relocation of it to the south, further shows the president’s intentions.
The latest example of this trend is the $600 million MOU signed in the UAE to establish lithium and gold enrichment plants in Lagos. This decision flagrantly ignores the constitutional principle of source-siting: lithium deposits are found in Kogi, Borno, Nasarawa, Kaduna, Kano, and the FCT, while gold is located in Kaduna, Borno, Zamfara, Kebbi, Katsina, and Sokoto. By concentrating these strategically important projects in Lagos, the administration is centralizing economic opportunities in one region while depriving resource-producing regions, particularly in the north, of the benefits of local development.
The cumulative effect of these policies indicates a resurgence of internal colonialism in Nigeria under Tinubu. First, the ethnic favoritism in federal appointments consolidates power in a single ethnic bloc, weakening the federal character principle that has historically maintained balance in governance. Second, the over-concentration of infrastructure and mega-projects in Lagos is reminiscent of classic economic extraction, where resources and opportunities are channeled to the dominant region at the expense of peripheral regions. Third, the misplacement of extractive and strategic industrial projects, such as the lithium and gold plants, further demonstrates a deliberate sidelining of northern Nigeria, reinforcing patterns of marginalization and exclusion.
This form of internal colonialism under the Tinubu government is not just economic but also political. By favoring a single region and ethnicity, the administration risks intensifying regional resentment, weakening national cohesion, and potentially inflaming tensions across the federation. For a country as diverse as Nigeria, these patterns of favoritism threaten to erode the delicate balance that has historically maintained national unity.
In my article of December 28, 2025, titled The Misdirection of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under Tinubu, I raised a critical question: has the president effectively “sold” the northwest, home to a significant portion of Nigeria’s resources, to foreign powers like the United States, and that it remains to be seen, where the president’s darling, France, will grab. Current developments, including the UAE MOU and the relocation of institutions and projects, appear to confirm these fears, suggesting that resource-rich northern states are being systematically excluded from benefiting from national wealth.
Those advising President Tinubu to follow this path have successfully diminished what was once regarded as his towering and sterling leadership qualities. Instead of promoting national cohesion, equitable development, and federal balance, these advisors encourage policies that favor ethnic and regional interests. By doing so, they have not only undermined the president’s credibility but also placed Nigeria’s unity on a precarious path.
For northern Nigerians, the warning is stark and undeniable. As Najaatu Mohammed revealed before defecting to support Atiku Abubakar in 2023 elections, she met the president in London at his personal request, only to be told that he has no agenda for northern Nigeria’s development.
Statements and actions like these leave no room for doubt. This administration is not genuinely interested in improving the lives of northern Nigerians.
With successive instances of ethnic favoritism and regional bias, every northern Nigerian must awaken to reality. President Tinubu and his team are actively pursuing a form of internal colonization that is aimed at marginalizing northern regions politically, economically, and socially.
The current religious and ethnic narratives being promoted to divide northern Nigerians are distractions meant to obscure this larger agenda.
The path forward lies in leveraging political power. Northern Nigerians, and indeed all Nigerians who desire a united and equitable country, must recognize the administration’s intent and act decisively at the ballot box. By voting against leadership that favors one region over others, Nigerians can restore federal balance and elect a president with a truly national orientation, capable of uniting the country, respecting federal character, and promoting equitable development across all regions.
The Tinubu government’s actions, ranging from skewed appointments, disproportionate project allocation, and misplacement of industrial investments, signal the ascendance of internal colonialism in Nigeria. However, the current administration appears to be reversing Nigeria’s progress on federal character by concentrating power and wealth in a single region and ethnic group.
Northern Nigerians, and indeed all concerned citizens, must recognize that the preservation of Nigeria’s unity and equitable development requires vigilance and political engagement. The exit from this dangerous path is to vote for leadership with a national orientation and a commitment to federal balance, a leadership that will ensure all regions, not just the southwest, share in Nigeria’s resources, development, and prosperity.
