The current presidential system of government in Nigeria, with its large executive arm, cost of government, which skews the national budget more to the recurrent expenditure with less for capital expenditure, and requirement for each state to produce a Minister, has become increasingly expensive. This situation does not augur well for the welfare of the citizens and stalls development.

Additionally, the bicameral system in the legislative branch has resulted in an excessive number of members and staff. Given the country's adverse financial situation, it is necessary to consider a return to the parliamentary system of government that was in place during the first republic. While both systems have their merits, the cost perspective and the need for financial discipline make a return to the parliamentary system more expedient.

The current presidential system in Nigeria is financially unsustainable due to the large size of the executive arm and generally bloated bureaucracy. The bicameral system in the legislative branch also contributes to excessive costs, with a surplus of members and staff. To address the country's financial situation, a return to the parliamentary system is necessary. My main concern is from the cost perspective and the need for financial discipline in government affairs.

Cost of the Executive Arm:
The present constitutional requirement that each of the 36 states to produce a Minister, results in a bloated executive arm. This increases the financial burden on the country, as the salaries, allowances, and benefits for these Ministers and their retinue of staff are significant. With the prevailing adverse financial situation, it is untenable to sustain such a large executive arm. Returning to the parliamentary system would reduce the number of Ministers and alleviate the financial strain, thereby releasing funds to be channeled to other human development projects and infrastructure.

In a parliamentary system, the executive arm consists of the Prime Minister and a smaller cabinet, chosen from amongst the parliamentarians. This reduces the cost of salaries, allowances, and benefits, as there are fewer positions to be filled. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada have successfully implemented this system, demonstrating its financial viability.

Size of the Legislative Branch:
The bicameral system in Nigeria's legislative branch has resulted in an excessive number of members and staff. The Senate President, House Speaker, and their respective members have a large retinue of staff, further increasing the financial burden. This pattern is replicated in the 36 State Assemblies, exacerbating the financial strain on the country, that is facing serious financial difficulties, which may remain in the foreseeable future. A return to the parliamentary system would streamline the legislative branch, reducing costs and promoting efficiency.

In a parliamentary system, the legislative branch consists of a single chamber, which reduces the number of members and staff required. This results in significant cost savings, as seen in countries like Australia and New Zealand. The streamlined structure allows for more effective decision-making and resource allocation.

In summary, due to the adverse financial situation in Nigeria, the current presidential system of government has become unsustainable. The large size of the executive arm, with the requirement for each state to produce a Minister, and the excessive number of members and staff in the bicameral legislative branch contribute to the financial strain. Returning to the parliamentary system, as seen in the first republic, would alleviate these issues by reducing costs and promoting financial discipline. While both systems have their merits, the cost perspective and the need for financial restraint make a return to the parliamentary system more expedient in the current circumstances.
This is perhaps, the right time to consider a review of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended)