Debunking the “detribalisation” narrative: A detribalised Nigerian leader does not exist

The “detribalised Nigerian” is a political unicorn—often spoken of, rarely, if ever, seen. In the theatre of Nigerian politics, to be labelled “detribalised” is to be granted a halo, as if fairness across ethnic lines is a superpower rather than a basic civic expectation. The script is familiar: a governor appoints a single cabinet member from a different ethnic group and, with much fanfare, claims the mantle of detribalisation. A minister surrounds himself with a mixed bag of aides and contractors and, voilà, he too is “detribalised.” This spectacle, however, is less about genuine inclusion and more about self-congratulation.

Let us not miss the underlining assumption here: by hailing these rare “detribalised” individuals, we quietly admit that tribal bias is the norm and fairness the exception—a one-eyed king in the land of the blind. The celebration of such exceptions is, in fact, a backhanded insult to the rest, as if the majority are hopelessly tribal and only a chosen few can rise above. If anything, this charade reveals more about our low expectations than about the virtues of those so anointed.

The semantic distortion of “detribalisation”

The concept of “detribalisation” has its roots in sociological and historical studies, particularly in the context of colonialism, urbanisation, and assimilation. Correctly understood, to be “detribalised” means that an individual or group has been stripped—either by force or by social pressure—of their indigenous cultural identity, customs, language, and social structures.

This process was often the result of deliberate policies aimed at integrating indigenous populations into a dominant culture, as seen in colonial Africa and elsewhere. In this sense, detribalisation is not a virtue but a loss: the erosion of valuable traditions, languages, and social bonds that have sustained communities for generations.

In Nigeria, however, the term has been appropriated and redefined. It is now used to describe leaders who astutely market themselves as fair to all ethnic groups, particularly in the allocation of government positions or resources. The underlying assumption is that tribal loyalty is the default mode of operation for most Nigerians, and that those who manage to act otherwise are exceptional. This interpretation carries problematic implications.

First, when we celebrate a handful of leaders as “detribalised,” we implicitly suggest that the rest are hopelessly tribalistic. This sets a low bar for national leadership and undermines the expectation that fairness and inclusivity should be the norm, not the exception. It also frames ethnic identity as something negative to be overcome, rather than a legitimate and enriching aspect of personal and collective identity.

Moreover, this narrative ignores the reality that Nigeria’s diversity is not inherently a source of division. Ethnic identity, like any form of identity, can be a source of strength, creativity, and resilience. The challenge is not to erase these identities, but to find ways to harmonise them within a broader national framework.

As former South African President Thabo Mbeki has noted, unity in diversity is not only possible but essential for the survival and flourishing of African states. Achieving this unity requires conscious political decisions and deliberate policies that foster inclusion and mutual respect.

Nigeria’s own history offers instructive examples. In the aftermath of the civil war, the government undertook significant efforts to promote national integration. The establishment of Unity Schools and the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) were designed to bring young Nigerians from different backgrounds together, fostering understanding and cooperation. These institutions, despite their imperfections, have played a meaningful role in bridging divides and nurturing a sense of shared citizenship.

Building a national identity does not require the abandonment of ethnic roots but rather finds strength in their coexistence. The constructive management of diversity rather than its suppression is key to the success of a new Nigeria.

The way forward for Nigerian national cohesion

The goal for Nigeria should not be the creation of “detribalised” individuals, but the cultivation of citizens and leaders who are proudly rooted in their heritage yet committed to the common good. National integration is best achieved through policies and practices that encourage cross-cultural understanding, equitable representation, and shared opportunities.

Moving forward, Nigeria should pursue national cohesion while respecting ethnic identities through six key strategies.

•        Educational reform should develop curricula appreciating Nigeria’s diverse cultures while strengthening citizenship education.

•        Leadership development must promote models demonstrating commitment to equitable governance beyond symbolic appointments.

•        Economic integration should support cross-regional partnerships that create interdependencies.

•        Cultural exchange programs should establish platforms for community dialogue, enabling Nigerians to understand rather than merely tolerate cultural differences.

•        Policy innovation should explore frameworks ensuring fair resource allocation with transparency.

•        Learning from communities that have successfully managed diversity provides valuable examples.

The language of detribalisation, as currently used, risks oversimplifying the complexities of the Nigerian identity.  Rather than seeking to produce “detribalised” Nigerians, we should aim to build a nation where diversity is recognised as a source of strength, and where every citizen feels both proud of their roots and invested in the collective destiny. True national integration comes from conscious efforts to weave differences into a vibrant national fabric, not from the erasure of differences.