When Governors Thank Abuja for Doing Its Job: The ‘Strategic Cooperation’ Gimmick

By Polycarp Onwubiko

When did the performance of a constitutional responsibility become a presidential favour?

Nigerian governors appear to have developed a new political lexicon: “strategic cooperation with the Federal Government.”

Whenever Abuja rehabilitates a federal highway, a governor rushes to applaud the President. When the President visits to commission or flag off a road project funded from public resources, the drums are rolled out, the praise singers take the stage, and the familiar refrain follows:

“Thank you, Mr President, for remembering our state. We will continue to partner with you for more democracy dividends.”

But there is an obvious question Nigerians ought to ask:

Since when did a government performing its constitutional responsibility become a favour to the people whose taxes and public revenues finance the government?

That question goes to the heart of Nigeria’s troubled federal structure.

Under the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly has legislative competence over the “construction, alteration and maintenance” of roads declared by it to be Federal trunk roads.

Therefore, where a road has been legally designated a Federal trunk road, its rehabilitation or reconstruction is not a presidential gift to the state through which it passes. It is part of the Federal Government’s constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

The Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Enugu-Onitsha corridor and other major Federal highways should therefore be viewed first through the prism of public responsibility, not political patronage.

The problem is not that governors welcome Federal infrastructure. They should. The problem begins when a constitutional obligation is presented as presidential benevolence — and governors appear compelled to behave like grateful beneficiaries.

The psychology of dependency

Nigeria’s federalism has long operated with a peculiar imbalance.

The Federal Government controls enormous fiscal and legislative powers, while states remain heavily dependent on allocations from the Federation Account. Historical Federal Government budget documents have, for example, reflected the statutory Federation Account distribution formula of 52.68 per cent to the Federal Government, 26.72 per cent to the states and 20.60 per cent to local governments.

That fiscal structure has profound political consequences.

A governor who needs Abuja’s cooperation for infrastructure, reimbursements, approvals or other federally controlled interventions may find it politically safer to praise the centre than to challenge it.

Thus, “strategic cooperation” can become less a description of intergovernmental partnership and more a language of political survival.

The central question should be straightforward: Is the governor negotiating for something genuinely discretionary, or is he lobbying for the Federal Government to discharge a responsibility already assigned to it?

There is a significant difference.

Cooperation or political choreography?

Intergovernmental cooperation is legitimate. Indeed, no modern federation can function effectively without it.

But cooperation should not mean political subservience.

A state governor asking Abuja to fix a Federal trunk road is not necessarily asking for a favour. He may simply be demanding that the Federal Government perform its assigned responsibility.

And when a governor publicly thanks the President for doing so, the symbolism matters.

It risks transforming citizens’ rights into presidential gifts.

That is how dependency becomes normalised.

The danger becomes greater when infrastructure commissioning ceremonies increasingly acquire the atmosphere of political rallies.

A road project can simultaneously be a genuine development intervention and a political communication opportunity. There is nothing inherently unusual about politicians highlighting infrastructure achievements. But the public deserves a clear distinction between government expenditure and partisan campaigning.

This distinction becomes particularly important as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general election. INEC has fixed the presidential and National Assembly elections for 20 February 2027, with governorship and State House of Assembly elections scheduled for 6 March 2027.

Against that background, every major infrastructure commissioning will inevitably attract political scrutiny.

The question is not whether roads should be built.

They should.

The question is whether public infrastructure should be converted into an instrument for cultivating political gratitude.

The road is not a favour

Consider the language often deployed around major Federal projects.

A governor says the President has “remembered” his state.

But Abuja did not suddenly discover that the state exists.

The road was already there.

The citizens were already there.

The economic activity was already there.

The taxes, duties, levies and other public revenues that ultimately finance government were already being generated.

The Federal Government is not doing the state a personal favour by intervening on a road under Federal jurisdiction.

It is governing.

And governance should not require citizens to applaud every basic responsibility as though it were an extraordinary act of presidential generosity.

This is precisely why Nigeria needs a more serious conversation about fiscal federalism and the distribution of responsibilities among the three tiers of government.

Nigeria needs structural reform, not ceremonial gratitude

The recurring controversy over Federal roads exposes a larger problem: responsibility and resources are frequently separated.

If states are expected to maintain roads that primarily serve their populations, then the fiscal resources required for that responsibility should follow.

If Abuja insists on retaining responsibility for Federal trunk roads, then it must also ensure that those roads are maintained efficiently and that states are not left carrying the burden by default.

A practical reform would be an automatic, transparent reimbursement mechanism for states that, with Federal approval, undertake emergency rehabilitation of Federal trunk roads.

Such a mechanism would remove the political discretion surrounding reimbursement and replace it with predictable rules.

Where a state spends its own money to prevent a Federal highway from collapsing completely, it should not have to spend years lobbying for reimbursement.

The same principle applies to the broader restructuring debate.

Nigeria needs to examine whether its present allocation of functions, powers and resources is producing the kind of federalism the country actually requires.

The answer cannot simply be another round of political slogans.

What true federalism should mean

The argument for restructuring is ultimately an argument about accountability.

Citizens should know which government is responsible for which service.

Governors should be accountable for responsibilities assigned to their states.

Local government officials should be accountable for functions assigned to local government.

And the Federal Government should be accountable for matters constitutionally placed within its sphere.

That is the essence of federalism: clear responsibilities, corresponding resources and identifiable accountability.

The United States provides an instructive example, although it should not be treated as a direct template for Nigeria. The Interstate Highway System was built with substantial Federal financial support, but the states own and operate the Interstate highways. Federal programmes continue to provide significant funding to states for highway projects.

The lesson is not that one country has discovered a perfect federal formula.

The lesson is that fiscal responsibility and administrative responsibility can be deliberately aligned.

Nigeria can develop its own model.

Stop confusing access with patronage

There is nothing wrong with a governor maintaining cordial relations with the President.

There is nothing wrong with requesting Federal intervention.

There is nothing wrong with praising a project that genuinely benefits citizens.

But there is something fundamentally unhealthy about a political culture in which governors feel compelled to portray the discharge of Federal responsibilities as presidential generosity.

That culture weakens accountability.

It teaches citizens to ask politicians for favours instead of demanding institutions that work.

It encourages governors to compete over proximity to Abuja rather than compete over the quality of governance in their own states.

And it turns infrastructure into political currency.

A Federal road should not become a governor’s evidence of personal access to the President.

It should be evidence that the Federal Government is doing its job.

The real question Nigerians should ask

The next time a governor takes the podium to thank the President for rehabilitating a Federal highway, Nigerians should listen beyond the applause.

Ask: Who constitutionally owns this responsibility? Who provided the money? Was the project budgeted? What was the procurement process? How much was spent? When will it be completed? Who will maintain it?

And, perhaps most importantly: Would this project have happened if there were no cameras, no commissioning ceremony and no approaching election?

Those are the questions that turn infrastructure from political theatre into accountable governance. Nigeria does not need governors who merely know how to negotiate access to Abuja.

It needs a political system in which governors can demand what belongs to their people without having to perform gratitude for it.

Strategic cooperation is useful when it produces results. Strategic sycophancy is not a substitute for constitutional accountability.

A man should not be celebrated simply because he has done the job for which he was elected — especially when the money used to do that job belongs to the public.

Governance is not a favour. It is a responsibility.

#