![Dr Muhammad Ali Pate, CEO of Gavi Alliance. [PHOTO CREDIT: Twitter handle of Atiku Abubakar]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2023/02/Dr-Muhammad-Ali-Pate.jpeg?fit=1080%2C720&ssl=1)
Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment in its digital journey. The policies are evolving, the infrastructure is expanding, and the talent is abundant. What remains is to ensure that this momentum is not confined to the centre. True transformation will come when every state sees itself not as a spectator, but as a driver of innovation.
At the heart of Nigeria’s digital transformation agenda lies a growing consensus that innovation thrives on collaboration. From policy frameworks to funding initiatives, the Federal Government, largely through the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), has taken visible steps to position technology as a driver of economic growth. Yet, beneath this momentum is a quieter but more consequential question: Can Nigeria truly build a sustainable innovation ecosystem if responsibility remains concentrated at the centre?
|
|
Recent conversations led by Kashifu Inuwa have emphasised partnership as the engine of progress, urging a shift from control to enablement and from isolated institutions to interconnected networks. The message is timely and necessary. However, it also exposes a structural gap in Nigeria’s digital strategy, one that risks slowing down the very transformation it seeks to accelerate. The gap is not in ideas or ambition, but in participation, particularly at the subnational level.
For years, Nigeria’s technology ecosystem has evolved in a way that places disproportionate weight on federal institutions. Programmes such as the Digital Start-Up Act, Idea Hatch, 3MTT, D4LL, and the National Digital Leadership Programme reflect a strong policy push by NITDA. They are designed to support innovation, nurture talent, and connect startups to opportunities. But they also reinforce a pattern in which startups increasingly look upward for direction, funding, and validation, rather than outward toward markets or sideways toward local ecosystems.
|
|
|
|---|
This dynamic raises an important concern: When innovation becomes too closely tied to central policy structures, it risks becoming policy-driven rather than market-driven. Startups may begin to optimise for grants instead of growth, for programme eligibility, instead of product-market fit. Over time, this can create a culture of dependency, where the state is seen not just as an enabler but as the primary driver of innovation.
This is where the role of states becomes critical.
Nigeria is not a monolith. Its economic realities, infrastructure gaps, and talent pools vary widely from one state to another. A one-size-fits-all approach to digital development, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot fully capture these differences. States are better positioned to understand local challenges, whether in agriculture, education, healthcare, or small-scale enterprise. They are also closer to the communities where the impact of technology is most needed.
The story shared by Inuwa about a rural farmer benefiting from digital tools is instructive. It illustrates how small, targeted interventions can unlock productivity and scale into broader economic gains. But such interventions are more likely to succeed when designed and implemented within local contexts. A farmer in Kebbi does not face the same challenges as one in Ogun or Enugu. The pathways to digital inclusion must therefore be shaped at levels closer to the ground.
Equally important is the need for coordination rather than duplication. Federal initiatives can provide frameworks and resources, but states should adapt them to local realities, experimenting with models that reflect their unique strengths. A state with a strong agricultural base, for instance, might prioritise agri-tech solutions, while another with a growing urban population might focus on fintech or digital services.
Leaving this responsibility largely to federal agencies creates a bottleneck. It limits experimentation, slows down responsiveness, and reduces the diversity of solutions emerging from the ecosystem. More importantly, it sidelines state governments that should be active participants in shaping Nigeria’s digital future.
There are signs of progress, but they remain uneven. While some states have begun investing in tech hubs, digital training programmes, and innovation clusters, many others are yet to define a clear digital strategy. This imbalance risks deepening existing inequalities, where a few urban centres continue to dominate the tech landscape, while other regions lag behind.
The expansion of infrastructure, as highlighted by the Minister of Communication and Digital Economy, Bosun Tijani, including fibre networks, telecom towers, and satellite capabilities, provides a strong foundation. However, infrastructure alone does not guarantee impact. Its value depends on how effectively it is utilised, and that utilisation is often driven at the local level. States must therefore move beyond passive beneficiaries of federal projects to active architects of digital adoption.
This requires a deliberate shift in mindset. State governments need to see technology not as a federal agenda but as a core component of their own economic strategies. This means investing in digital skills, supporting local startups, creating enabling policies, and integrating technology into governance and service delivery. It also means building partnerships with private sector actors, academia, and civil society within their jurisdictions.
Equally important is the need for coordination rather than duplication. Federal initiatives can provide frameworks and resources, but states should adapt them to local realities, experimenting with models that reflect their unique strengths. A state with a strong agricultural base, for instance, might prioritise agri-tech solutions, while another with a growing urban population might focus on fintech or digital services.
The broader implication is clear. Nigeria’s digital transformation cannot be sustainably driven by NITDA alone. It must be distributed, inclusive, and locally grounded. When states actively participate, they not only expand the reach of innovation but also create multiple centres of growth, reducing pressure on a single national system.
The broader implication is clear. Nigeria’s digital transformation cannot be sustainably driven by NITDA alone. It must be distributed, inclusive, and locally grounded. When states actively participate, they not only expand the reach of innovation but also create multiple centres of growth, reducing pressure on a single national system.
For startups, this shift could be transformative. A more decentralised ecosystem would mean access to diverse funding sources, varied markets, and context-specific support systems. It would encourage competition, foster resilience, and reduce overreliance on federal programmes. In such an environment, startups are more likely to build solutions that are not just innovative but also relevant and scalable.
The emphasis on collaboration, as articulated by NITDA’s leadership, is therefore both appropriate and incomplete. Collaboration must extend beyond federal agencies and startups to include state governments as equal stakeholders. Without this, the ecosystem risks becoming concentrated rather than distributed, dependent rather than dynamic.
Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment in its digital journey. The policies are evolving, the infrastructure is expanding, and the talent is abundant. What remains is to ensure that this momentum is not confined to the centre. True transformation will come when every state sees itself not as a spectator, but as a driver of innovation.
In the end, the question is not whether the Federal Government is doing enough. It is whether the rest of the federation is doing its part.
Shuaib S. Agaka is a tech journalist and digital policy analyst based in Kano. Email: [email protected]
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
