Was this a necessary cultural reset or a political distraction? The answer depends entirely on which kind of nationalism one values, and whether procedural legality can compensate for a perceived deficit in democratic legitimacy.

1. The Anthem as National Symbol: Civic Duty vs. Ceremonial Rite

A national anthem is more than a song; it is a state-sanctioned musical emblem, the nation’s “sound-flag”, used at official and civic occasions to audibly represent the state. It symbolizes sovereignty, continuity, and the nation’s core values and aspirations.

The debate in Nigeria fundamentally pits two distinct conceptions of patriotism against each other:

Civic Nationalism: Prioritizes agency, duty, and shared constitutional values. This outlook was embodied by “Arise, O Compatriots,” which employed verbs like “arise” and “serve” to cast the citizen as the protagonist. Its pledge-like text explicitly named civic values: “freedom, peace and unity” and the call to “guide our leaders right”. This model aligns with a modern, republican ideal of patriotism.

Symbolic-Cultural Nationalism: Prioritizes shared land, peoplehood, and ceremonial unity. This is reflected in “Nigeria, We Hail Thee,” which is a salutary anthem that invokes belonging and togetherness across diverse peoples. Its strength lies in ceremonial solemnity and historical continuity, evoking the republic’s earliest years.

The 2024 reversion deliberately traded a civic-duty script for a heritage-ceremonial one. While “Nigeria, We Hail Thee” resonates with nostalgia and stately salutation, critics immediately flagged its colonial-era diction, including terms like “native land” and “tribe(s),” which many see as dated and potentially exclusionary for a young, globally networked population.

2. Validity vs. Legitimacy: The Process Critique

The most profound controversy surrounded how the change was executed, not necessarily what was changed.

The Legal Path: Valid but Accelerated

The constitutional minimum for changing the anthem (which is not entrenched in the 1999 Constitution) requires only an ordinary Act of Parliament. This means the bill had to pass both chambers and receive presidential assent (Section 58). These steps were satisfied.

However, the process was unusually accelerated.

• The House of Representatives moved the bill from first to third reading in one sitting.
• The Senate cleared it swiftly days later.
• Public consultation and hearings were minimal or non-existent. Public hearings are considered best practice under chamber Standing Orders (“where necessary”) but are not a constitutional condition for validity.

Therefore, the National Anthem Act, 2024, is formally valid. Yet, the speed and limited consultation fueled criticisms of low democratic legitimacy, undermining public buy-in for such a foundational symbol. This procedural thinning occurred despite external pressure: the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, even urged wider citizen participation before the bill’s passage.

The Question of Policy Need The change failed the policy-need test because the case for necessity was thinly evidenced. Critics framed the move as symbolic theatre or a distraction amid record inflation and security anxieties, reading it as mis-prioritized relative to the biting cost-of-living crisis. While supporters argued the reversion de-militarised a symbol introduced by a military regime in 1978, this rationale was seen as weakened by the haste and the adoption of colonial-era language.

Key Points

3. Political Overtones and Authorship

Strategic Timing and Presidential Ownership

Most observers read clear political overtones into the 2024 switch. The timing, signing the bill on Tinubu’s first-year anniversary amid economic strain, was widely interpreted as agenda-setting optics. President Tinubu publicly embraced ownership, arguing the reversion was “my priority,” thereby turning the anthem into a political statement of leadership intent and cultural direction.

The legislative choreography, marked by compressed multiple readings, amplified the narrative that the government favored spectacle over consultation. Local commentary also entertained speculation that the change was motivated by the long-running political rivalry between Tinubu and former military ruler Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, whose government introduced the 1978 anthem. However, major reporting confirmed that while political signaling (identity reset, heritage appeal) was evident, a provable personal vendetta remains unestablished.

The Authorship Dilemma: Citizen vs. Foreigner

The reversion revived the debate over authorship, as “Nigeria, We Hail Thee” was penned by Lillian Jean Williams, a British expatriate. Conversely, the 1978 anthem was a deliberately homegrown project, compiled from five Nigerian contest winners and set by the Nigerian Police Band under Benedict E. Odiase.

Nigeria has thus employed both models. Global examples show that foreign authorship isn’t automatically illegitimate (e.g., Japan’s anthem arrangement by a German bandmaster or Israel’s imported melody). What matters more than the passport status of the author are criteria such as cultural fit, inclusive language, teachability, and, most crucially, the legitimacy of the selection process.

4. Lessons from the World: Anthems as Political Design

Anthem switches are common globally, often serving as constitutional signals in sound. Comparative analysis highlights that the process employed should match the problem being solved:

The Nigerian switch, a rapid reversion to a text with colonial heritage, contrasts sharply with consensus-building examples like South Africa’s hybrid anthem (which merged two songs and multiple languages) or Zimbabwe’s nationwide competition.

5. Aftermath and Safeguards Against Abusive Change

The aftermath of the 2024 switch was marked by rapid institutional roll-out (NOA issuing standardized lyrics), early implementation hiccups (wrong anthem played at a World Cup qualifier), and continuing debate on process. The new Act is protocol-driven, requiring respectful standing but not criminalizing refusal to sing. (A separate proposal to criminalize refusal to recite the anthem was withdrawn by lawmakers after public criticism).

Can and Should It Be Changed Again?

Yes, it can be changed again, and easily, because it resides in ordinary statute. This legal simplicity creates the risk of partisan “whiplash,” where every new administration might seek to rebrand the national soundtrack for symbolic effect.

If the goal is stability and high legitimacy, future changes should only occur if there is a demonstrable public purpose and broad buy-in.

Safeguards to Prevent Abusive Change

To harden the process against purely partisan flips while preserving democratic flexibility, Nigeria could adopt several safeguards:

• Constitutional Entrenchment (The Gold Standard): Lift the anthem into the Constitution or a constitutional schedule, requiring supermajorities in the National Assembly and approval by at least 24 State Houses of Assembly (Section 9).
• Statutory Supermajority: Require a two-thirds vote in each chamber for any law amending national symbols, coupled with time-separated readings (e.g., 60–90 days between readings) to force public deliberation.
• Mandatory Public Hearings: Make public hearings in all geopolitical zones a statutory prerequisite for bills concerning national symbols, requiring a published report annexed to the bill.
• Expert Commission and Rationale: Establish a National Symbols Commission involving multi-lingual poets, musicologists, youth, and disability advocates. This commission should be mandated to publish a plain-language rationale mapping chosen lyrics to constitutional values before any final vote.

Conclusion: A Call for Principled Patriotism

The 2024 anthem switch achieved the legal minimum but failed the democratic legitimacy test. It succeeded in maximizing symbolic impact and presidential signaling, but at the cost of national consensus.

Nigeria now faces a fundamental question: Should its national identity be anchored in ceremonial heritage, or must it be actively defined by civic duty and accountability? If the goal is to sustain a modern democracy, the focus must shift from the aesthetics of the symbol to the integrity of the process. The next time the soundtrack of the Republic is tuned, it must be done through a transparent, consultative process that ensures the language is inclusive, the values are forward-facing, and, above all, that citizens feel they helped choose it. The debate is no longer about the lyrics of 1960 or 1978, it is about who decides and how in a democracy.

Contact & Further Reading

For contact and more insights visit:

• Contact: 1st Attorneys
• Articles: Legal Insights
• Practice Areas: Legal Solutions