Joseph Lengmang, PhD
Former & Pioneer Director General,
Plateau State Peacebuilding Agency.
joelengs01@gmail.com
The recent judgment in Fatima Baba Akawu & Anor v. Jos North Local Government Council is not a matter Plateau State can afford to treat casually.
It is not simply about one applicant, one certificate, or one local government council.
It raises fundamental questions about constitutional meaning, identity, belonging, institutional responsibility, and peace in a state where such questions have historically carried grave consequences.
I align myself with the legal concerns raised by Barr. John Apollos Maton in his rejoinder of 11 June 2026 – READ IT HERE
Beyond the technical legal arguments, however, there is a wider public concern that must be stated clearly: when a judgment touches the meaning of indigeneity in Plateau State, it touches one of the most sensitive foundations of our social and political life.
Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, defines an indigene of a state in relation to ancestral community membership.
In plain terms, indigeneity is tied to descent from a community indigenous to a state.
It is not created by birth within a territory.
It is not acquired by long residence.
It is not conferred by administrative sympathy.
And, with respect, it should not be manufactured by judicial declaration.
That is why the circumstances surrounding this judgment are troubling.
If, as alleged, the Jos North Local Government Council was served but failed to enter appearance, filed no defence, and submitted no written address, then this was not merely a weak legal defence.
It was an institutional failure.
A matter with far-reaching constitutional and communal implications was allowed to proceed without the full benefit of a counter argument.
The reliance on Anzaku v. Governor of Nasarawa State also appears, with respect, to have been stretched beyond its proper meaning.
That case addressed discrimination against lawful residents in the enjoyment of civil rights.
It did not hold that residence or birth within a state automatically transforms a person into an indigene under Section 318(1).
Citizenship guarantees rights. Indigeneity, as presently defined by the Constitution, speaks to ancestral community membership.
This distinction is not abstract.
It is part of the delicate mechanism through which Nigeria has managed federal character, local representation, customary identity, access to certain public benefits, and the recognition of community belonging.
Whether one agrees with the present arrangement or not, it remains the law.
Courts interpret the Constitution; they do not rewrite it.
The danger lies not only in the judgment itself, but in what it could become if left unchallenged.
An undefended judgment of this magnitude can become a precedent, a template, and a mobilising tool for similar claims in other fragile contexts.
In Plateau State, where indigene-settler tensions have shaped conflicts over land, chieftaincy, political representation, and communal recognition, such a judgment cannot be treated as routine.
This is not about denying anyone their citizenship rights.
Every Nigerian, wherever he or she resides, is entitled to dignity, security, livelihood, residence, and protection from discrimination.
Those rights must be defended.
But defending citizenship rights does not require the judicial redefinition of indigeneity.
To do so would not heal old wounds; it could reopen them.
The reported 30-day compliance order makes the matter even more urgent. If a Certificate of Indigene is issued pursuant to the judgment, the consequences may become difficult to reverse.
Other claimants may rely on it. Other councils may face similar demands.
What begins as one certificate could quickly become a wider institutional crisis.
The Jos North Local Government Council must therefore break its silence, explain its conduct, engage the Plateau State Attorney General, appeal the judgment, and seek a stay of execution where appropriate.
The Attorney General should treat this as a constitutional emergency and consider intervention, declaratory relief, and immediate administrative guidance to all 17 local government councils on compliance with Section 318(1).
The Plateau State Government should also retrieve and make available the Plateau Resolves of 2004 and relevant Government White Papers on the Jos crises.
These documents represent hard-earned inter-communal conversations on identity, coexistence, and peace, and may be important in any appellate process.
Ultimately, this judgment, if left untested, could unsettle the basis upon which Certificates of Indigene are issued, with implications for federal character, scholarships, political zoning, customary rights, and local administration.
Plateau State has paid too high a price for questions of identity to be handled carelessly.
The judgment of 9 June 2026 must therefore be tested urgently.
If the legal concerns raised are correct, it must be set aside.
The alternative would be to allow a precedent that turns ancestral identity into a matter of judicial discretion.
For Plateau State, and for Nigeria’s fragile federation, that is a price too high to pay.