International Journal of Sub-Saharan African Research (IJSSAR)

ABSTRACT Background: Nigeria’s federal structure is under intense strain from two ideologically opposed violent non-state actors: the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in the South-East and the jihadist Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) in the North-East. Although their doctrinal foundations differ, both movements contest the territorial integrity and institutional legitimacy of the Nigerian state. Research Gap: Despite extensive literature on insecurity in Nigeria, three gaps remain. First, existing studies examine IPOB and ISWAP insurgencies as distinct security threats, with little comparative analysis of their implications for Nigerian federalism. Second, while federalism is widely discussed in Nigeria, its connection to contemporary dual insurgencies remains under-theorized. Third, there is limited empirical research on how two ideologically divergent violent non-state actors one separatist and one jihadist jointly challenge the legitimacy and sustainability of the Nigerian federation between 2015 and 2024. This study seeks to fill this gap through a comparative analysis.
Objective: The broad objective of this study is to comparatively examine the effects of separatist and insurgencies on Nigerian federalism, using IPOB and ISWAP as case studies, between 2015 and 2025.
Method: A qualitative documentary analysis was used in the study. The study adopts a Structural-Functionalist framework to demonstrate how security dysfunctions within constituent units trigger adaptive, centralizing responses from the federal center Results: The findings indicate that despite differences in ideology, operational tactics, and geographic location, both insurgencies generate similar structural consequences. These include the centralization of security powers at the federal level, weakening of state and local autonomy, sharp decline in state revenues, and the militarization of everyday governance.
Conclusion: The study concludes that asymmetric security crises act as catalysts for federal decay. While IPOB and ISWAP pursue divergent ideological goals, their shared structural effects like hyper-centralization of security, erosion of subnational autonomy, fiscal contraction, and militarization of civil life reveals a deeper federal malaise. Paradoxically, the federal government's security-led response has not strengthened federalism but has instead institutionalized a centralized security state.
Unique Contribution: The unique contribution of this research lies in its comparative federalism framework. By juxtaposing a separatist insurgency (IPOB) and a jihadist insurgency (ISWAP) within a single analytical lens, the study demonstrates that ideologically divergent threats produce structurally convergent effects on federalism. Recommendation: The study recommends, among others, multi-level policing as a structural response to hyper-centralization, fiscal federalism reform to address fiscal contraction in constituent states and institutionalization of structured political dialogue to restore equality of belonging.