When Laws Become Suggestions: Nigeria, Minimum Wage, and the Lost National Agenda

■ Introduction

A nation is judged not only by the laws it enacts but by the seriousness with which it enforces them. In Nigeria today, one of the starkest contradictions between law and practice is the national minimum wage of ₦70,000. It is a law made at the federal level, binding on all states, and placed under the Exclusive Legislative List, which means only the National Assembly has the power to legislate on it. Yet, the enforcement is piecemeal, selective, and subject to the whims of individual governors.

How can something that is supposed to be uniform be optional? How can an Act of the National Assembly become a matter of negotiation between states and labour unions, rather than a binding obligation? What does it say about the Nigerian federation when governors openly declare that they cannot or will not pay a lawfully mandated wage, without consequence?

This minimum wage crisis is not merely about money. It is a window into the deeper dysfunction of Nigeria’s constitutional framework, its economic mismanagement, and, perhaps most importantly, the absence of a clear national agenda. What emerges is the troubling image of a country where laws are passed for political headlines, but their enforcement depends on convenience.

In this essay, we shall question the selective enforceability of the minimum wage, examine the constitutional contradictions it exposes, reflect on Nigeria’s mismanagement of resources, and confront the unsettling truth: Nigeria may not know where it is going as a nation.

■ Minimum Wage and the Exclusive List: Why Is It Optional?

Under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), labour issues, including minimum wage, fall under the Exclusive Legislative List. This means the National Assembly has the sole power to legislate on them. Once a federal law is passed on the minimum wage, it is binding on all states. There is no constitutional escape route for governors.

Yet, reality tells a different story. Some governors quickly announced their readiness to comply, others began negotiations with labour unions, while some openly declared that they lacked the resources to implement it fully. The law has thus become piecemeal, enforceable in Lagos but questionable in Zamfara, binding in Rivers but “under review” in Ekiti.

This contradiction raises profound questions:

If a law made under the Exclusive List is negotiable, what then is the meaning of “supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the National Assembly”?
Does this not suggest that federal laws are mere political gestures, dependent on the mercy of governors?

And if governors can ignore a binding federal law with impunity, do we truly have a federation or just a loose confederacy pretending to be one?
The partial enforceability of the minimum wage demonstrates a deeper sickness: the erosion of law as law, replaced by law as suggestion.

■ The Constitutional Framework: Dignity on Paper

The Nigerian Constitution is filled with lofty promises. Section 1(1) declares its supremacy. Chapter IV guarantees fundamental rights. Section 14(2)(b) boldly states that the welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.
But these words collapse under the weight of selective enforcement. The minimum wage law shows that even when Parliament makes binding provisions, enforcement depends on political convenience. Thus, dignity becomes a paper guarantee, not a lived reality.

Consider the irony: a worker’s right to a living wage has been recognized by the Constitution’s spirit and confirmed by an Act of the National Assembly. Yet the Nigerian state cannot guarantee its citizens that right across the federation. What then remains of human dignity when even the law that promises it is treated as optional?

The Constitution appears strong in words but weak in life. It provides rights but without effective remedies. It provides duties but without mechanisms to compel compliance. In essence, it is a Constitution that commands but does not enforce.

♤ Governors vs. National Law: The Culture of Impunity

One of the most disturbing aspects of the minimum wage debate is the open defiance by some state governments. Governors have not hidden their reluctance. Some say they cannot afford it, others claim it will bankrupt them, and a few have outright delayed implementation.
This raises a fundamental question: What happens when a governor refuses to obey a federal law?

In theory, the law is clear. Federal law prevails over state law. Governors who disobey should face sanctions or judicial compulsion. In practice, nothing happens. No sanctions. No prosecutions. No accountability. Instead, the Nigerian system normalizes lawlessness under the banner of “federalism.”

This reveals the culture of impunity at the highest levels. If the law can be openly defied by governors, then what moral authority does the same government have to demand obedience from ordinary citizens? The state becomes a hypocritical entity, demanding respect for traffic laws, tax laws, and criminal laws from its citizens, while its leaders openly disregard binding statutes.
When leaders can ignore the law, the law itself becomes cheapened.

■ Economic Mismanagement: Where Is Nigeria’s Money?

The governors’ defence for resisting the minimum wage is almost always the same: “We cannot afford it.”
But Nigeria is not a poor country. It is a mismanaged country.
Nigeria earns trillions of naira annually from oil, taxes, customs duties, and non-oil revenues. Yet basic obligations, such as paying workers a living wage, become “too expensive.” Where then does the money go?

Debt servicing consumes a disproportionate share of federal and state revenues.
Corruption drains billions through inflated contracts and embezzlement.
White elephant projects swallow funds while citizens live in penury.
Lavish governance costs ensure that political office holders live in luxury while workers starve.
The minimum wage crisis is therefore not a crisis of scarcity, but a crisis of priorities. The Nigerian state finds money to buy luxury SUVs for legislators, but not enough to pay teachers, nurses, and civil servants a wage above the poverty line.
This inversion of priorities is not an accident, it is the reflection of a state that does not yet know what it values.

■ The Absence of a National Agenda

Perhaps the most haunting truth revealed by the minimum wage debacle is this: Nigeria has no national agenda.
Every four years, new governments come with new slogans: “Transformation Agenda,” “Next Level,” “Renewed Hope.” But these are party manifestos, not national visions. They die with the administration that created them.
As a result, Nigeria has no continuity. No defined ten-year, twenty-year, or fifty-year development plan that transcends political parties. The country does not know where it is going, because every leader sets a new direction for personal or partisan purposes.

This absence of agenda explains why a law like the minimum wage becomes optional. There is no national consensus on what Nigeria wants to achieve for its workers, its youth, or its economy. Everything is negotiable, temporary, and uncertain.
A nation without an agenda is like a ship without a compass, adrift, vulnerable, and directionless.

■ Implications for Democracy and Dignity
The partial enforceability of the minimum wage has profound implications for Nigeria’s democracy.

1. It undermines the rule of law, since laws become optional.
2. It erodes citizens’ trust in government, since promises mean little.
3. It weakens the dignity of labour, since workers cannot depend on the state for fair treatment.
4. It reduces democracy to a façade, since elections change leaders but not the culture of impunity.
Most importantly, it reveals a nation that has lost its moral centre. If the welfare of the people is supposed to be the primary purpose of government, then a government that cannot guarantee a living wage has failed its most basic duty.

■ Conclusion:
Do We Know Where We Are Going?
The minimum wage debate is not only about numbers. It is about the soul of Nigeria. It forces us to ask uncomfortable questions:
What does it mean when a law on the Exclusive List is not enforceable across the federation?
What does it say about a Constitution that guarantees dignity only on paper?
Where does Nigeria’s wealth go, if not to the people who labour daily to build the nation?
And most haunting of all: does Nigeria know where it is going?

A nation that cannot enforce its own laws, protect its citizens’ dignity, or articulate a clear future for itself is a nation in crisis. The tragedy is not that Nigeria is poor, but that Nigeria is directionless.
Until Nigeria defines for herself a true national agenda, rooted in the Constitution, respected by all governments, and aimed at real human dignity, the cycle will continue. Laws will remain suggestions. Rights will remain paper guarantees. And the Nigerian worker will remain trapped in a state where the law speaks, but the state is deaf.