THE IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP IN ITS VARIOUS DIMENSIONS AND

PERSPECTIVES: A POLICY OF DIFFERENTIATED CITIZENSHIP

AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NIGERIA’S DEVELOPMENT

BY

AREGBESOLA, MICHEAL OLUWASEGUN

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

IBADAN, NIGERIA.

E-MAIL: mosebolatanreal8@gmail.com

1

INTRODUCTION

It is a known fact that the body politic consists of two

basic structural elements: the state and the citizen. Studies

have also shown that the state is comprised largely of those

who rule – the state elite, and the institutions or organs

through which they rule. The rest of the membership of the

body politic constitute the governed, that is, the general

membership (Onyeoziri, 2005:75).

Generally, citizens refers to this general membership of

the body politic. More accurately, citizens refer to a subset

of the total membership of a body politic usually the majority

who enjoy special rights and privileges denied the other

members, the minority.

The foregoing underscores the fact that the rights and

privileges are not available to all persons who live in the

territory of the state of body politic. The citizens of a

country therefore enjoy some special rights and privileges

which non-citizens do not enjoy. However, those who are

regarded as aliens, foreigners can only qualify to be treated

as citizens if they are accepted into the status of

citizenship through the process of naturalization.

In this write-up, the thrust is to bring to the fore the

idea of citizenship in its various dimensions and perspectives

with the basic intention of exploring the policy of

differentiated citizenship in Nigeria and its implications for

Nigeria’s development in this 21st century. Therefore, the

aims given above shall be the focus of this intellectual

2

discourse and expedition as it beams its searchlight on these

matters of importance especially in this era of renewed and

reinvigorated focus on the concept of citizenship and its

implications for sustainable peace and development in the

world.

To capture the aims therefore, this work has three

sections. The first section shall deal with the definitional

approach to citizenship, how to become the citizen of a state

including the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. The

second section shall focus on three important perspectives on

citizenship as popularized by Fred Onyeoziri. Also the policy

of differentiated citizenship and its implications for the

Nigerian state with relevant case studies shall be thoroughly

examined in this section. The final section shall cover the

three basic areas in need of urgent attention in the practice

of citizenship in Nigeria. Then comes the conclusion and

recommendation.

CONCEPTION OF CITIZENSHIP AND WAYS OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP

Scholars have defined citizens in various ways. In one

view, a citizen is “a resident of a city or town, especially

one entitled to the vote and to other privileges”. Another

view posits that a citizen is “a person owing loyalty to, and

entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a

given state”.

In another dimension, a citizen is regarded as “a full

member of a political community with the implication that

there are others who are not strictly “full” members in the

3

sense that they are excluded from enjoying some rights and

privileges. However, according to Fred Onyeoziri, “the status

of full membership of a political community, with its

associated rights, privileges, and responsibilities, is

referred to as citizenship status. Therefore, the foregoing

clarifies whatever confusion that stares this concept in the

face.

Every individual in the country claims the citizenship of

a particular state or another. For example, a person whose

parents came from Nigeria but live in Ghana, which is another

country from where he/she was born is a Nigerian, no matter

how many years he/she has lived in Ghana. Citizenship could

therefore be acquired through birth, naturalization, marriage,

honorary and dual citizenship (Olasedidun, 2008: 2).

Citizenship that is got through birth indicates that a

person is born by parents who are legal citizens of a

particular country and has a birth certificate from that

country too.

Citizenship through naturalization is expressed when a

person who has lived in a country other than his own for a

certain period of time applies to the government of that

country for citizenship. When the government grants him/her

the citizenship status, that means the person has naturalized

him/herself with that particular country. It is instructive

to note that under this condition, he/she may not claim the

country that he/she came from again depending on the rules

guiding the process in each country. This is due to the fact

4

that some countries do not encourage dual citizenship

(Olasedidun, 2008: 2).

Under citizenship by marriage, a Nigerian woman that got

married to an American man has automatically become an

American citizen with the evidence of Marriage Certificate.

Moreover, a person could be honoured with the citizenship

status of another country. It could also be the reward of an

excellent performance. In 1957, the astute and world renowned

singer, I.K. Dairo was bestowed with the award of Member of

British Empire (MBE) by the Queen of England. This very

example is typical of honorary citizenship and was as a result

of the achievement of the singer as one of the first-

generation singers in Nigeria with unparalleled success that

granted them international recognition.

Lastly, one could also acquire citizenship through dual

means. This is when a person possesses the citizenship status

of two countries. However, some countries do not allow this.

But it is subject to variation as dictated by the guiding

principles of respective countries.

CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS

T.H. Marshall (1950) was one of the first to attempt to

codify or classify the rights which are associated with

citizenship in the modern state. In his book titled

“Citizenship and Social Class”, he classified the rights of

modern citizenship into three.

5

The first set is civil rights, the second is political

rights and the third is the socio-economic rights of citizens.

The civil rights are the most basic of rights of citizenship

and they aim at protecting the freedom of the human person

(Onyeoziri, 2005: 77). These rights include the following:

freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association,

liberty of human person, freedom of faith, the right to own

property and to conclude valid contract, right to life, right

to justice and the principle of equality of all citizens.

According to Onyeoziri, “the last is different from the

others because it is the right to defend and assert all of

one’s rights on terms of equality with others and by due

process of the law’’. Since this group of rights is strategic

to human freedom in democracies, non-citizens enjoy these

rights too. The law courts are known as instructions

responsible for the enforcement of these rights.

The next group of rights is known as political rights or

rights of political participation as popularized by T.H.

Marshall. Political rights enable the citizen to participate

in the exercise of political power as a member of a body

invested with political authority or as an elector of the

members of such a body (Onyeoziri, 2005).

The franchise is known as the most common among political

rights. An uncontestable fact about political rights are

positive in character in the sense that they require an

initiative on the part of the citizen who is a beneficiary of

such a right. The institutions associated with the exercise

6

of these political rights are elections, referenda, electoral

commissions and representative bodies.

Marshall’s third category of rights are social rights or

in more modern terms, social and economic rights. This corpus

of rights ranges from the right to a modicum of socio-economic

welfare and security to the right to share fully in the social

heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according

to the standards prevailing in the society. These rights

include the right to education, right to work and the right to

good health. The aim of these rights is to ensure some

minimum protection against poverty, disease, ignorance and

other misfortunes with costly implications. The schools and

the social services are the major institutions responsible for

the protection of these groups of rights.

So far, I have defined citizenship largely within the

purview of rights and privileges which citizens can demand as

of legitimate entitlement from the state. Flowing from the

conception of citizenship, citizenship also includes duties

and obligations which citizens owe the state and their

society. These obligations or duties of citizenship are also

referred to as the responsibilities of citizenship. For most

polities, these responsibilities include the following:

(1) Loyalty to the state and patriotism and love for the

country;

(2) Taxation - willingness and readiness to pay taxes to the

state;

7

(3) Military service – citizens are expected not only to

volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces of their country

but may also be conscripted into the service if occasion

demands it;

(4) Citizens are expected to respect both public and private

property, and also are demanded to respect the rights of

other citizens;

(5) Others are: mobilizing assistance for the victims in

times of natural disasters, supporting the state by

obeying the laws of the country, etc. (Onyeoziri, 2005:

80).

In connection with discussions above, there is a school

of thought that emphasizes the moral obligation of

citizenship. What is implied here is that the good citizen

should not be content with claims of rights and privileges

from the state and society but should also participate in

promoting the good of the community. Late President John

Kennedy of the United States of America summarised view in his

immortal phrase that says, ‘‘ Ask not what your country can do

for you, ask what you can do for your country’’ (Onyeoziri,

2005:81).

The immutable fact remains that effective democracy

requires a strong link between a citizen’s eagerness to claim

rights and his/her zeal to discharge duties and obligations.

There is a strong historical link between both and this

connection must not be thrown in the wind if indeed we want a

better perspective of citizenship for the purpose of

8

sustainable peace and development in Nigeria and more

importantly, our polities in Africa.

PERSPECTIVES TO UNDERSTANDING CITIZENSHIP

There are dimensions to understanding citizenship and

these dimensions must be understood for the purpose of placing

the analysis of this vital concept in proper perspective. As

outlined earlier, there are three perspectives or attributes

of citizenship that needs to be emphasised here.

First, it is “it is the highest status enjoyed by the

members of a political community”. In the evolution of the

modern state, distinctions were made between subjects and

citizens. Subjects owed loyalty to the sovereign power of

their community but were not entitled to any right and

privileges. Thus, subjects had a lower status in the sense

that they were not entitled to the rights and privileges that

belong to the citizens. Moreover, subjects did not have a

direct relationship with the political sovereign unlike

citizens who had a direct relationship to, and recognition

from the sovereign authority (Onyeoziri, 2005: 76).

The second dimension to understanding citizenship is

that, “in principle, the member who are admitted into the

status of citizenship have equal rights”. This view was as

well corroborated by Ojukwu and Onifade (2010) in Jana Krause

(2011) when they wrote that “in principle, all Nigerian

citizens are equal no matter the circumstances of their birth

and whether or not they reside in their places of origin”.

9

Citizens are equal recognizably under the law. A citizen

who is treated less than another can claim to have had his/her

rights violated because one element in the right of the

citizen is that of equal treatment under the law (Onyeoziri,

2005: 76).

However, this assertion of formal legal equality between

citizens is not always realistic or true to life. Flowing

from the thought above, Ojukwu and Onifade (2010) in Jana

Krause (2011) admitted that “in practice, one is a Nigerian

citizen only in his state of origin … no matter for how long

one resides or domiciles in a state other than his own”. The

assertion above therefore points to the fact that in real

life, all manner of social inequalities co-exist in the system

along with formal legal equality. And it is therefore

instructive to note that it is in the foregoing empirical

assertion that the policy of differentiated citizenship takes

its hold in Nigeria. Therefore, it will not be out of place

to state that this second perspective to understanding

citizenship has been dealt with more in disregard than in

honour.

The third perspective to understanding citizenship is

perhaps the most distinctive attribute of citizenship. It

recognizes citizenship as “a status that carries with it a

bundle of rights and responsibilities” (Onyeoziri 2005:76).

The former refers to the demand which the citizen can make in

the state and other members of the society while the latter

refers to the obligation or duties of the citizens to the

10

state. Both rights and responsibilities are not mutually

exclusive in any discourse that centres on citizenship.

11

THE POLICY OF DIFFERENTIATED CITIZENSHIP AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

FOR NIGERIA’S DEVELOPMENT

Generally, citizenship is a principle of equality applied

to all members of the political community but in Nigeria, the

citizenry are not treated with equality throughout the

country. Both the 1979 and 1999 constitutions of Nigeria

allowed the indigene concept to creep into their definition of

the Nigerian citizen, then given that definition an ethnic

colouration. With the foregoing assertion, it is clear that

the second dimension to understanding citizenship has been

flawed with this empirical evidence in the practice of

citizenship of Nigeria.

Flowing from the foregoing, since Nigeria is a multi-

ethnic state, there is in almost every Nigerian community the

simultaneous presence of indigenous and non-indigenous ethnic

groups. And since the indigenous ethnic groups are the ones

given the most right in the community, the end product is that

Nigeria practices a concept of citizenship that does not

fully honour the principle of “equal treat to all which is

supposed to characterize a citizenship (Onyeoziri 2005: 82)

In order to drive home the points that I am interested to

make here, two case studies shall be used. These are: Kano

and Plateau States. The reason for this is straightforward.

These two States have experienced acute instances of

differentiated policy of citizenship accompanied by serious

implications hence the justification for the purposive

selection.

12

NIGERIA’S CITIZENSHIP CRISIS IN PLATEAU STATE: THE CASE OF JOS

Geographically, Jos lies in the centre of Nigeria between

the predominantly Muslim north and the mostly Christian south.

The city of Jos was established around tin mining activities

during colonial times. It attracted migrants from all parts

of Nigeria for work in the mines and with the colonial

administration. The colonial legacy of indirect rule

initially relied on Northern Emirate structures. Later,

political power was transferred to the native tribes of the

Plateau.

Among these, the Berom were one of the largest tribes and

most vocally defend ‘indigene’ rights today. But Hausa

migrants from the North constituted by far the most numerous

group in early Jos. However, it is instructive to note that

the conflict over citizenship and indigene rights is in no way

peculiar to Plateau State (Jana, 2011). Most states of the

Nigerian federation face an indigene or citizenship crisis.

The constitution privileges local descent over residency.

Those who leave their state or origin risk becoming ‘second-

class citizens’ in another part of the federation. The

foregoing therefore sets the tone for the second case study.

NIGERIA’S CITIZENSHIP CRISIS IN KADUNA STATE: THE CASE OF

ZANGO KATAF COMMUNITY

13

In a case study of the 1992 riots in the Zango Kataf

community of Kaduna State, Mustapha (2003:218) in Onyeoziri

(2005: 83) drew the following conclusion:

If the drive for democratization is to succeed, there

is need to address the problem raised by the emphasis

on indigeneity and autochthony in the definition of

state citizenship in Nigeria. Zango Kataf illustrates

the possible confusion that can arise from the use of

indigeneity as the sole foundation for determining

citizenship and efforts should be made to incorporate

the principle of residency (2003: 218).

The situation in Zango Kataf is similar to that of the

Berom people in Plateau State. The Kataf people claim to be

the real indigenes of the territory as against the Hausa

community who are regarded as “settlers” and therefore do not

qualify for full right and political rights and political

rights even though they have lived in the territory since 1836.

Similar situations occur all over Nigeria. The inequality

involved in this distinction between “indigene” and “non-

indigene or settler” without mincing words, undermines the

principle of equality which should inhere the concept of

nationalized citizenship (Onyeoziri 2005: 83).

14

THE NIGERIAN CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP: ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PEACE

AND DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA

In a situation whereby one of the critical dimensions to

understanding citizenship has been flagrantly dealt with, in

impunity even to the extent that the constitution privileges

local descent over residency, it will not be an overstatement

that the implications of violating such an important criteria

will pose threats in strategic manner to the peace and

development of any state found guilty of such culpable act.

More importantly, Nigeria as a country that has more than 250

ethnic groups, the discrimination against non-indigenes in all

six geopolitical zones portends threat that can tear the

country apart.

Examining more appropriately the case studies discussed

above, today the ownership of Jos and claims to ‘indigene’

status are fierceloy contested between the native tribes and

the Hausa. Indigene certificates ensure access to political

representation and positions within the civil service (Jana,

2011).

The import of the foregoing opened the floodgates for the

politics of labelling and identity premised on differing

interpretations of local history applied to mark the boundaries

of who belongs and who is left out (Jana, 2011). The assertion

above fosters group boundaries to secure political control over

local government areas. This therefore implies that within a

socio-political environment characterized by strong patronage

networks, exclusion of one fraction of the political elites

15

will be felt as socio-economic decline among its constituency.

That is one group will feel they are denied opportunity to

state power and as a consequence, it poses great threat to the

peace and development of such a state or political society.

The statement is evident in the riots that engulfed Zango Kataf

community in 1992.

In the same vein, in the last decade the political crisis

over ‘indigene’ rights and political representation in Jos,

capital of Plateau State has developed into a protracted

communal conflict affecting most parts of the state. At least

4,000 and possibly as many as 7,000 have been killed since late

2001, when the first major riot broke out in Jos, in more than

three decades (Jana, 2011). Twelve years later, only heavy

presence of military and police forces ensures a fragile calm

in the city especially with the recent threats that the Boko

Haram sect poses to the Nigerian state.

Without being myopic about the implications of

differentiated citizenship in Nigeria, it is interesting to

note that across board all over Nigeria, there have been rising

tensions among ethnic groups rooted in allocation of resources,

electoral competition, fears of religious domination and

contested land rights have amalgamated into an explosive mix.

Moreso, the presence of well-organized armed groups in rural

areas, the proliferation of weapons and the sharp rise in gun

fatalities within Jos and some other parts of the country all

points to the real risk of future large-scale violence and are

surely evidences of the implications of policy of

differentiated citizenship in Nigeria.16

Hence, the saying is sure, if this crooked policy is not

quickly reverted, it portends greater risk to Nigeria’s peace,

stability and developmental agenda as slated for the third

world countries in the Millennium Development Goals.

NIGERIA’S CITIZENSHIP THEORY: THREE BASIC AREAS IN NEED OF

URGENT ATTENTION

Without mincing words, Nigeria’s citizenship theory is

defective in three mains respect and urgent attention that can

engender positive changes must be placed on these issues of

importance. First, it is largely right-based and even the

enforcement of those rights is weak. Even when these rights

are given, it is more of civil, as many constitutions and bill

of rights do, to the neglect of political and socio-economic

rights. Fundamentally, this is flawed and it is a poor

accompaniment to a social democratic state (Onyeoziri 2005:85).

As a result of this flaw, the impunity with which peoples’

political rights are treated and the continued denial of socio-

economic rights in Africa are evidences of the identified flaw

in the practice of citizenship in Nigeria.

Second, it has a poorly developed sense of citizen’s moral

obligation to the development of the state and of public

affairs. This creates a citizenship that sees itself largely

receiving from, and not giving to, the public domain. This

makes for a citizenship theory that is insufficiently

accommodative of the complimentary obligations and

17

responsibilities of citizens which of course will be a poor

companion for a democratic state (Onyeoziri 2005: 85).

Most importantly, the greatest defect in Nigeria’s theory

and practice of citizenship is that it is not erected, like

citizenship should, on a firm foundation of a formal equality

for all irrespective of the circumstances of birth and whether

or not they reside in their places of origin (Ojukwu and

Onifade, 2010 in Jana, 2011). It is a citizenship that

incorporates discrimination into its very core. In the light

of this truth, it explains the reason why we have

discriminatory civic commitment and obligation to the public

domain. This has been a contributory factor to the nation’s

stalled development. Therefore the political space which the

Nigerian state creates for its citizens should be one founded

on the principle of equality for all.

CONCLUSION

Citizenship is a multi-dimensional concept. Basically, it

covers two content domains: The domain of rights and the domain

of responsibilities. Also, various perspectives to

understanding citizenship has been incisively discussed and it

has been noticed that a cogent perspective in the theory of

citizenship has been treated with more of impunity and

aberration than with respect and caution for the dignity of

human person.

In this part of the world, rights have been blatantly

disrespected and obviously, there is poor conception of the

18

moral obligation of citizenship and all these have piled up in

constraining a noble understand of theory and an acceptable

understanding of the practice of citizenship.

Hence, states in Africa must expound the frontiers of

rights as not only important for the identification of citizens

with the state but to bring to the fore in practice, that it

serves the purpose of endowing the citizens with an efficacy to

contribute to the development of the state. It must be

properly understood that when these rights are denied the

citizen, however, his asset value to the state, is bound to

diminish. This explains slack of civic virtue and loyalty on

the part of the citizenry in Nigeria.

RECOMMENDATION

In the bid to finding lasting solutions to the problem of

differentiated in Nigeria, the following policy options are

deemed strategic to enshrining equality as a basis for treating

both indigene and non-indigene living in various communities in

Nigeria.

At this time of increasing focus on constitutional

amendment within the purview of a decentralized status –

the inclusion of citizens, in principle, there should be a

re-appraisal on this from the constitutional framework.

Both the government and respective ethnic group should make

19

effort at reaching concensus in order to work out the

modalities for the success.

Focus should be withdrawn from the arrogant and overbearing

attitude of federal and state governments. With this

therefore, attention should be placed on the local

government and at this level, different ethnic groups

should be given their due respect without forsaking the

basic rights that should be accorded to the indigenes.

Mutual respect based on dignity of human person among

different ethnic groups should be encouraged and a

principle of social justice be given a facelift at the

local level under a committed, God-fearing and foresight

leadership.

The Nigerian state needs to insist on its normative theory

of citizenship for the purpose of engendering citizen

loyalty, commitment and added value to the state. A state

that permits its own citizens to suffer discrimination and

denials in its own territory and in the hands of its own

officials cannot attract strong, positive citizen support

and participation in its public affairs. Therefore, urgent

attention must be given to these recommendations in order

to avert the consequences of a policy of differentiated

citizenship that looms large in the Nigerian polity.

20

REFERENCES

Jana, K. (2011). A Deadly Cycle: Ethno-Religious Conflict in

Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Executive Summary Working

Paper: Geneva Declaration.

Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class.

Cambridge University Press.

Olasedidun, A.G. (2008). The Citizen and State. POS 114

Lecture Series, Distance Learning Centre, University of

Ibadan, Ibadan, pp. 2-7.

Onyeoziri, F. (2005). The Citizen and the State. Ibadan

University Press, pp. 75-86.

21