The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, has officially withdrawn his proposed Indigeneship Bill from further legislative consideration.
The decision, announced late Tuesday, follows extensive feedback from various stakeholders and a detailed analysis report from the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS).
In a statement issued by his media aide, Levinus Nwabughiogu, Mr. Kalu explained that while the bill’s intention was to foster national unity, equity, and inclusiveness for all Nigerians, the NILDS report advised against proceeding with the legislation in its current form. The report suggested that State Houses of Assembly are better positioned to enact laws ensuring settlers enjoy the same rights and privileges as indigenes, as already provided for in the constitution.
The NILDS report also highlighted potential complications if the bill were passed, particularly the risk of creating overlapping or multiple indigeneship claims. “Though the Bill seeks to achieve some commendable objectives, however, this can be achieved through enactment of law. If this Bill is passed, it would pose challenges with time especially on the issue of double or multiple indigeneship,” the report stated.
Mr. Kalu, who also chairs the House Committee on Constitution Review, reaffirmed his commitment to a people-centred legislative process, assuring that the constitution amendment process would remain open, participatory, and inclusive.
The Indigeneship Bill and Its Opposition
The Indigeneship Bill, which had only passed its first reading in the House, sought to grant Nigerians who have resided in a state for a specific period the same rights and recognition as indigenes. Its primary goal was to eliminate discrimination against so-called “non-indigenes” and promote national integration.
However, the bill quickly ignited significant debate due to concerns about its legal and political implications, particularly regarding multiple indigeneship claims and the potential undermining of state autonomy.
Several socio-cultural groups voiced strong opposition. The De Renaissance Patriots Foundation urged Speaker Abbas Tajudeen to reject the bill, warning it could “provoke widespread ethnic conflict across the country.” Similarly, The Society for Odua Socio-Cultural Renaissance argued that indigeneity is an ancestral and cultural identity that cannot be legislated, differentiating it from citizenship, which is determined by legal frameworks.
The pan-Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere, through its National Publicity Secretary, Jare Ajayi, stated the bill could “aggravate ethnic tension and violence.”
Ohanaeze Ndigbo Youth Council Backed Bill
In contrast, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo Youth Council Worldwide expressed support for the bill, questioning the criticism it received. The group’s president, Okwu Nnabuike, highlighted historical examples, such as the election of Umaru Altine, a Fulani man, as the first Mayor of Enugu in 1952, to demonstrate the accommodating nature of the Igbo people.
“The fact that Ndigbo live and cohabit with other Nigerians freely is a testament to the fact that they have open and large hearts,” Nnabuike stated.
The withdrawal of the bill underscores the sensitive nature of identity and residency issues in Nigeria and the legislative leadership’s responsiveness to public sentiment and expert advice.
