By Erewunmi Peace

A proposed constitutional amendment aimed at redefining the concept of indigeneity in Nigeria has sparked widespread criticism, with many analysts already declaring it “dead on arrival” — not because it lacks potential, but due to deep-rooted ethnic sensitivities and political resistance.

Although the bill does not officially originate from the South-East, many have linked its backing to lawmakers from the region. The bill proposes that anyone who has lived continuously in a state for at least ten years, or has been married to an indigene for the same period, be legally recognized as an indigene of that state.

Controversy and Backlash

Since its introduction, the bill has faced fierce opposition from several quarters, including ethnic groups, traditional rulers, and civil society organizations.

Notably, the Yoruba socio-political group Afenifere warned that the bill, if passed, could deepen ethnic tension, undermine native land rights, and destabilize Nigeria’s already fragile national identity framework.

“The Indigene Bill may appear progressive on the surface, but it risks inflaming ethnic divisions if not backed by deeper national restructuring,” the group stated.

Similarly, De Renaissance Patriots Foundation urged the Speaker of the House of Representatives to reject the bill, citing its potential to “trigger violent inter-ethnic conflicts” and “undermine ancestral heritage.”

The Heart of the Debate

At its core, the bill seeks to promote national unity by making indigeneship more inclusive — a step away from the discriminatory practices that deny full citizenship rights to long-time residents in many states.

Proponents argue that in a truly united Nigeria, one’s birthplace or tribe should not limit access to opportunities like education, employment, or political participation within any state of residence.

Critics, however, view the bill as an overreach — one that could be exploited politically and threaten local identities in states already grappling with land, resource, and heritage tensions.

Why It’s “Dead Before Arrival”

Despite its intentions, the bill’s timing and perceived regional bias have made it unlikely to succeed in its current form. With major ethnic and regional blocs rejecting it outright, the proposed legislation appears politically unviable.

While the bill has not been officially withdrawn or defeated in the National Assembly, the stiff opposition it faces from influential stakeholders suggests its chances of passing are extremely slim — hence, the expression that it is “dead before arrival.”

Conclusion

The Indigene Bill reveals a broader truth about Nigeria’s complex federal structure and the deeply entrenched ethnic loyalties that often frustrate reform. Until there’s a more comprehensive national dialogue on identity, citizenship, and inclusion, even well-intentioned proposals like this will struggle to take root.