By Ekene Umeh
The Presidency’s swift denial of claims that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu plans to rename Nigeria the “United States of Nigeria” and abolish Sharia criminal law has shifted national attention from a sensational viral report to a deeper conversation about misinformation, constitutional reform, and the unresolved question of Nigeria’s federal structure.
The controversy erupted after a widely circulated report alleged that Tinubu was finalising a sweeping constitutional amendment package allegedly code-named Project True Federation.
The publication claimed the proposed reforms would rename Nigeria, restrict Sharia law to civil matters, dissolve Hisbah operations, and devolve powers such as policing, mineral control, railways, electricity, and VAT collection to state governments.
The report sparked intense political debate and emotional reactions online, particularly because it touched on long-standing and sensitive issues surrounding religion, federalism, and regional power relations.
But the Presidency has firmly dismissed the claims as fabricated.
In an official statement issued by presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga, the government described the story as false, divisive, and politically motivated. According to the statement, President Tinubu has no plan to sponsor any constitutional amendment bill bearing the name Project True Federation or pursue proposals to rename Nigeria or abolish Sharia law.
READ ALSO:
- International Day of Families 2026: Families Remain Foundation of Society — WOMAN
- NDC Constitutes National Selection Committee for Governorship, National Assembly Primaries
The Presidency argued that constitutional amendments are not matters that can be secretly executed or imposed by presidential directive. Nigerian law requires any constitutional alteration to secure a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the National Assembly and approval by at least 24 state Houses of Assembly.
Onanuga further urged Nigerians to treat politically charged viral stories with caution, particularly as the country approaches another election cycle. He accused unnamed political actors of attempting to provoke tension and destabilise the country through misinformation.
Yet beyond the denial lies a reality that explains why the story gained traction so rapidly.
For decades, restructuring has remained one of Nigeria’s most debated political questions. Calls for greater state autonomy, state policing, resource control, and fiscal federalism have repeatedly surfaced across regional and political divides.
Supporters of restructuring often argue that Nigeria still operates a highly centralised system inherited from military rule, where too much authority and revenue remain concentrated in Abuja. Many advocate devolving powers to states to encourage local development and accountability.
On the other hand, opponents warn that aggressive decentralisation could deepen regional inequalities, weaken national cohesion, and trigger fresh constitutional conflicts.
The viral report appeared to tap directly into these unresolved anxieties and aspirations.
Its claims regarding Sharia law were particularly sensitive. Since the reintroduction of Sharia criminal codes in several northern states beginning in 1999, debates over the relationship between religion and constitutional governance have remained politically delicate. Any suggestion of federal intervention in that arrangement was bound to provoke strong reactions.
Political analysts say the incident reflects a broader challenge confronting Nigeria’s information space.
In an era dominated by instant messaging and social media, dramatic political claims can spread nationwide before official institutions respond. Stories involving identity, religion, and power often travel fastest, especially when they align with existing public fears or expectations.
The Presidency’s response may have settled the immediate question surrounding Project True Federation, but the episode reveals something larger.
Even though the reported proposals have been officially rejected, the conversations they ignited remain very real.
Questions about the balance of power between Abuja and the states, the future of federalism, and how Nigeria manages its diversity continue to shape political discourse. And as constitutional debates periodically return to the national stage, so too will competing visions of what Nigeria should become.
For now, the government insists no such constitutional revolution is underway. But the speed and intensity of the reaction show that many Nigerians remain deeply invested in the future design of the federation itself.
