From traffic to flooding to waste management, Nigeria’s cities echo the same frustrations.
On May 28th, reports emerged of a devastating flood in Mokwa, Niger State, caused by heavy rainfall. It claimed over 200 lives and displaced more than 3,000 people. Just two weeks later, the Makurdi–Lafia–Abuja road was rendered impassable due to flooding. In southern Nigeria, flooding has become so routine that it’s treated as expected. Authorities have already warned of heavy downpours in at least 15 of the country’s 36 states.
Transport challenges remain widespread across the country, with issues of mobility, safety, and the availability of public transit continuing to affect even the capital city. Housing pressures, decaying infrastructure, and the privatization of water services have become entrenched national concerns. Although these problems appear national in scope, their roots are fundamentally local, and so too must be the solutions
Yet our governance model remains top-down where funding flows federally and implementation sits with state ministries based on the assumption a one-size-fits-all approach can solve these challenges. But it has not. And it will not.
Nigerian urban planning often fails because it is mostly overwhelmed, and out of touch with local nuances and realities. The governance scale is too wide and too uneven for blanket solutions to work. It is difficult to expect the state ministry to prioritize repairing a 100-meter trunk C road in the middle of a suburb serving just 100 residents – not when larger projects attract more visibility and political attention. But does that mean those 100 people don’t deserve safe roads? Neighbourhood streetlights remain broken because bridges and highways are seen as more important. As a result, smaller-scale urban infrastructure, especially in lower-income neighborhoods, is consistently neglected.
Tracking compliance for new developments becomes inefficient when all planning documents must be submitted centrally, rather than handled locally. Stakeholder engagement is often superficial, as coordinating inclusive participation across an entire state is far better suited to neighborhood-level governance and makes it easier to truly reflect local voices.
We need a fundamental rethink of local government structures, particularly around capacity and funding. Shared problems may inspire shared ideas, but effective delivery must be locally driven. With the recent autonomy granted local governments, they must take the lead in urban service delivery, ensuring governance reaches the people who need it most. Central authorities, especially State governments, must also cede that space by empowering local governments to thrive and build the capacity needed to deliver on their mandate.