Should State of Residence Replace State of Origin?

By Msonter Anzaa

As a growing nation, Nigeria grapples with a number of contentious issues bordering on her nationhood. One such issue is whether state of residence should replace state of origin as a means of identifying a citizen’s relationship with the society. This essay looks at both practices and argues that state of residence can replace state of origin as a more liberal and beneficial means of identifying an individual with his community.

State of origin is used to identify people who originate from particular states of the federation. In many states, individuals are required to obtain a certificate of state of origin to certify that they originate from that state. Usually, this is necessary because certain privileges are reserved for those who are indigenes. This practice has its disadvantages. To begin with, it discourages national integration and promotes discrimination. Nigerians living in places other than their states of origin – no matter how long – are considered strangers and never given a chance to integrate fully into the life of the people. They cannot run for political office in those states or enjoy certain privileges. “Such people are discriminated against by the ‘indigenes’ on the mere basis of their non-ancestral linkage to the place in which they have resided for decades and contributed immensely in social terms, infrastructure and in other forms” (Abba, 2012).

Another disadvantage of state of origin is that it encourages dangerous competition and ethnicity. We are witnesses to many ethnic clashes between “indigenes” and “non-indigenes”. This happens because of the consciousness by the “indigenes” that other Nigerians living in those areas are aliens and do not have full rights. Gondyi (2013) argues: “It is the realization that ‘indigenes’ could make certain claims that non-indigenes cannot make that raises the competition about who is an indigene and who is not. If we take away the advantage . . . it would fade away . . .” Achebe (1983) also laments that:

A Nigerian child seeking admission into a federal school, a student wishing to enter a College or University, a graduate seeking employment in the public service, a businessman tendering for a contract, a citizen applying for a passport, filing a report with the police or seeking access to any of the many avenues controlled by the state, will sooner or later fill out a form which requires him to confess his tribe or less crudely and more hypocritically, his state of origin.

Thirdly, the state of origin also promotes mediocrity and under-develops the society. In matters of election or hiring people for jobs, the most-qualified people may not get the chance. In the end, even though the society will benefit better if a certain individual were given a chance, he is denied it because he is of a different state of origin.

Given the above disadvantages associated with state of origin, there is need to adopt state of residence in its place. This has its advantages in addition to sustaining whatever advantages there may be with state of origin. First, state of residence encourages national integration, promoting unity and trust. If an individual is confident that he is fully accepted in the society where he resides, he is much less likely to classify one group of Nigerians as being his people, and another, as strangers. This way, individual differences would be minimized rather than emphasized and more trust would be achieved among ethnic groups. It would soon become unimportant to what ethnic group one belongs, since it would not be the determining factor for access to opportunity. “Consequently, there is need to replace or supplement the indigene-ship principle and replace it with the residency principle to entitle a person to all the rights and privileges of a place he/she resides” (Abba, 2012). We can achieve this by stipulating by law what period a person must be continuously resident in a community, and what civil obligations he must be performing in such a community to enjoy residency rights.

Again, with national integration, there would be real development in Nigeria. Individuals will have a full chance to contribute to nation-building wherever they are. This will also reduce the cut-throat competition for federal power that threatens the very unity of this nation. Since the definition of “my people” will no longer be ethnic-based, why would I insist that federal power must go to my state of origin? Instead, Nigerians will rise above such lowly sentiments in electing the political leadership. It would then be based on the ideals of the candidates and no longer on the basis of seeking to dominate other ethnic groups politically.

Finally, as we continue our journey towards genuine nationhood, let us deliberately de-emphasize our differences. We must seek to provide equal rights and opportunities for our people irrespective of where they reside. That is what state of residence does. It will help bring about that “dream-Nigeria in which a citizen could live and work in a place of his choice anywhere, and pursue any legitimate goal open to his fellows . . .” (Achebe, 1983).

References

Abba, E. (2012). “Citizenship and Indigeneship in the Nigerian Context”.

http://elijahgod.xomba.com/citizenship-and-indigeneship-nigerian-context Retrieved on January 21, 2013.

Achebe, C. (1983). The Trouble with Nigeria. Fourth Dimension Publishing Co.

Ltd.

Gondyi, N. D. (2013). “Where is the North? Response to Aliyu Tilde’s Treatise

on Indigeneship in Nigeria.” http://premiumtimesng.com/opinion/114074-where-is-the-north-response-to-aliyu-tildes-treatise-on-indigeneship-in-nigeria-by-nengak-daniel-gondyi.html Retrieved on January 22, 2013.