Public outrage on social media platforms, which peaked on Tuesday, has forced the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, to withdraw his controversial indigeneship bill.

What began as a legislative proposal reportedly aimed at liberalising the concept of indigeneship quickly became the subject of intense online backlash, ultimately compelling the sponsors to beat a retreat and some of the listed co-sponsors to denounce it.

The bill, co-sponsored on the face of the document by six other lawmakers, including Hon. Ginger Onwusibe, Hon. James Faleke, Hon. Blessing Amadi, Hon. Regina Akume, Hon. Khadija Bukar Ibrahim, and Hon. Abdussamad Dasuki, sought to amend the Constitution to grant indigene status to Nigerians by birth, continuous residence of not less than ten years, or by marriage.

Critics argued it could deepen ethnic tensions and provoke further societal division in an already sensitive national climate. They expressed concerns that, if passed into law, it could stoke crisis in the country.

Nigerians took to their social media handles to criticise the bill and call for its withdrawal. Several X users (formerly Twitter) were unsparing in their criticism.

@EjioforBar wrote, “The indigeneship bill is another dangerous ploy to change the demography.”

@daylearny said, “A bill for indigene by residence of at least 10 years, by marriage, and by birth has passed second reading. The bill is sponsored by Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu and six others. Lagos is the target! The bill needs to be stopped!”

CitizenOlu @jagabanolu said, “Someone from another ethnic group cannot dictate to 300 ethnic groups… This bill is dead on arrival and will never see the light of day.”

@Spitfyer7 added, “Absolutely… That bill was an invitation to chaos.”

@BusuyiOrisWorks said, “Live somewhere for 10 years and suddenly you’re an indigene? That’s the bill they’re cooking up. Indigenship is a tenancy deal?”

The conversation around the bill on the platform was observed to have further polarised the country along ethnic lines, a development that has intensified since the fallout of the 2023 presidential election.

What the bill proposed

The proposed bill sought to alter Section 31 of the Principal Act by inserting new subsections “(2)–(5)”, thus:

“(2) A citizen of Nigeria is an indigene of a State if he:

(a) was born in that state and has lived in the state for a continuous period of at least 10 years; or

(b) was not born in the State but has resided in a Local Government Area of that State for a continuous period of at least 10 years and can provide evidence of tax payment in that State for at least 10 years.

“(3) A person under subsection (2) of this section is entitled to apply to the Local Government Chairman for a certificate of indigeneship of a State.

“(4) A woman who is married to an indigene of a state different from her state of origin for at least five years becomes an indigene of that state and is entitled to all rights and privileges of an indigene of that state in cases of employment, appointment, or election into any political or public office.

“(5) In the case of divorce or death of a spouse, a woman remains an indigene if:

(a) there were children born of the marriage or not; or

(b) she elects to remain an indigene of that State.”

Also, the bill sought to alter Section 318 (1) by substituting the interpretation of “belong to” with “‘Belong to’ or its grammatical expression, when used with reference to a person in a State, refers to a person either of whose parents or any one of whose grandparents was a member of a community indigenous to that State, or the wife or husband of such a person. Such husband or wife shall continue to belong to that state upon dissolution of marriage or death of spouse.”

Lawmakers listed as co-sponsors disown bill

However, following the backlash that trailed the legislation, two members of the House of Representatives, James Abiodun Faleke (APC, Lagos) and Blessing Amadi (PDP, Rivers), listed as co-sponsors of the bill, distanced themselves from the legislative proposal.

Faleke, in a series of X-posts on his official handle @honfaleke, said he was not part of the sponsors of the bill.

“Let me state categorically that I am not a co-sponsor of the bill. Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely false and misleading.

“I do not support the bill, and I believe it stands no chance of being ratified by the states. It is, therefore, unreasonable to suggest that I would align myself with such a proposal. I urge the public to disregard these unfounded claims and remain guided by verified facts,” Faleke posted.

Also, Amadi, in a letter addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, denied knowledge of the bill.

“As a legislator deeply committed to transparency, accountability, and due legislative process, Hon. Amadi considers the inclusion of her name without consultation or approval to be misleading and a misrepresentation of her person,” she said.

Later on Tuesday night, in a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Levinus Nwabughiogu, Kalu said the withdrawal became necessary in light of the concerns and constructive feedback received from various stakeholders regarding the bill.

Kalu, who is also the chairman of the Constitution Review Committee of the House, added that the Bill Analysis Report, forwarded by the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS), also made it imperative to step down the bill at this time.

“Although the intention of the bill was to promote national unity, equity, and inclusiveness among all Nigerians, regardless of where they reside, part of the report stated that the State Houses of Assembly should make laws that will make settlers in different states enjoy the same rights and privileges as the indigenes.

“States should make laws that would allow settlers to benefit from the same rights and privileges enjoyed by indigenes without any form of discrimination as rightly provided for in the constitution.

“Though the bill seeks to achieve some commendable objectives, 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 indigenship,” the report stated.

Proper homework needed before introducing sensitive bills – Dr Hayatu

Commenting on the development, a senior lecturer of political science at Bayero University, Kano (BUK), Dr Aminu Hayatu criticised the bill’s approach and timing, emphasising the need for proper groundwork before introducing sensitive legislation.

“As usual, they didn’t do their homework,” he said. “You don’t just wake up one day and think you can produce something that you believe is good for the nation. Sensitive issues like this must be rooted in public opinion and community engagement.”

He stressed the importance of a bottom-up approach in legislative processes, especially on matters as delicate as indigeneship, citing the potential of grassroots consultations, town hall meetings, and national orientation campaigns to gauge and build public support.

“Before introducing such a bill to the floor of the National Assembly, there should have been a sampling of opinions in communities. The House could have organised public hearings to test the waters. As it stands, they’ve started from the wrong place,” he said.

He recalled previous controversial bills originating from senior members, including the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, which faced public outcry and were either rejected outright or later withdrawn.

“It’s happening too frequently. Even on the floor of the House, these ideas receive negative responses because the foundation is weak. It’s symptomatic of leadership that is out of touch with public sentiment,” he noted.

He called for greater collaboration with civil society, academics, and local communities before legislative drafting begins. “They have access to experts from universities, the private sector, and civil society—yet these bills often appear rushed and poorly thought out. Engagement must precede legislation.”

On his part, the Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative and Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, said while the idea of allowing Nigerians who have stayed long in a state to enjoy indigeneship is welcome, there is a need for proper education and enlightenment before introducing such a legislative proposal.

“My take on this is that first and foremost, what we have been advocating is that anybody who was born and brought up in a particular place should not be denied indigene status in that state, irrespective of his or her identity. So we encourage that anybody who was born and brought up and lives in that state and continues to associate with that state should have access to everything,” he said.

He, however, stated that such legislative proposals must be pursued only after exhaustive consultations and enlightenment to gain the people’s buy-in and avoid backlash.