IBRAHIM QUADRI
A fresh proposal by the House of Representatives Constitution Review Committee to create 31 additional states in Nigeria has triggered strong reactions from prominent individuals and socio-political groups across the country. It reinforces the quest for true federalism amidst criticisms.
The proposal, which would increase Nigeria’s current 36 states to 67, was contained in a letter read during Thursday’s plenary session by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided in the absence of Speaker Tajudeen Abbas.
According to the letter, the proposed states include: – North-Central: Okun, Okura, and Confluence (from Kogi); Benue Ala and Apa (from Benue); FCT State. North-East: Amana (Adamawa); Katagum (Bauchi); Savannah (Borno); Muri (Taraba). North-West: New Kaduna, Gujarat (Kaduna); Tiga, Ari (Kano); Kainji (Kebbi). South-East: Etiti, Orashi (sixth states in the South-East); Adada (Enugu); Orlu (Imo); Aba (Abia). South-South: Ogoja (Cross River); Warri (Delta); Ori, Obolo (Rivers) and South-West: Torumbe (Ondo); Ibadan (Oyo); Lagoon (Lagos); Ijebu, Ogun (Ogun); Oke-Ogun/Ijesha (Oyo/Ogun/Osun).
The committee stated that the creation of new states must meet constitutional requirements, including a two-thirds majority approval from the National Assembly, the affected State Houses of Assembly, and Local Government Councils.
However, major socio-cultural groups, including Afenifere and the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), have rejected the proposal, describing it as “ridiculous and unnecessary.”
The National Organizing Secretary of Afenifere, Abagun Omololu in an interview with newsmen dismissed the move, stating that it contradicts Afenifere’s longstanding demand for true federalism.
He said, “The recent proposal by the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review to create 31 new states does not align with Afenifere’s long-standing demand for true federalism.
“Instead of addressing the core structural issues plaguing Nigeria, this initiative appears to be a mere political exercise that will further weaken governance and deepen economic inefficiencies.’’
Afenifere has consistently advocated genuine fiscal federalism, similar to what Nigeria’s founding fathers agreed upon before independence.
Omololu noted, “The creation of more states without a viable economic foundation will only compound the financial burden on the nation, as many existing states are already struggling to generate sufficient Internally Generated Revenue and rely heavily on federal allocations to survive.
“Turning every local government into a state is not the solution to Nigeria’s governance challenges. The real issue is not the number of states but the dysfunctional federal structure that has concentrated power at the centre, stifling regional development.”
Instead of proliferating states that may later be unviable, Afenifere urged the National Assembly to focus on constitutional reforms that would devolve power, return resource control to the regions, and grant states the autonomy to develop at their own pace.
“Nigeria needs a system where states or regions control their resources and contribute an agreed percentage to the federal government, just as it was during the First Republic. This is the only path to sustainable development, not the reckless creation of more administrative units.
“Afenifere rejects this proposal and calls on well-meaning Nigerians to resist attempts to distract from the real conversation—restructuring and true federalism,” Omololu declared.
Reacting to the report, Senator Shehu Sani stated that the lawmakers are proposing the creation of 31 new states when many states are still depending on the Federal Government for survival.
According to Sani on his official X account; “While many states are dependent on federal allocation for their survival, the House of Representatives proposal for 31 states is ironic and comical. Politicians just want to cave out mini colonies for themselves.”
However, the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide declared that the South-East should be allocated more states to address “the wrongs that had been done to the region on state creation.’’
Ohanaeze’s National Publicity Secretary, Ezechi Chukwu, stated, “It is unfortunate that such a bill is also aimed at suppressing the South-East as usual. It is completely unacceptable that Southeast should be appropriated only five states.
“South-East, all these while, is the only zone in the Federal Republic of Nigeria that has the least number of states irrespective of our population and our contributions both economically and infrastructural development of the nation.
“So, giving southeast such a small number of five states in this bill when others that already have advantages orchestrated by successive governments before now is quite unacceptable and unfortunately, it is above all antithetical to the commonwealth of the South-Easterners and the so-called equity we are preaching in the country.”
He added, “South-East deserves more states more than any other zone in the country because South-East is the only zone that has been short-changed over the years by successive governments. So, if justice and equity should prevail southeast must be given the highest number of states.
“So, if the Federal Government fails to correct the wrongs that had been done to the South-East over the years, this is the time to at least give this equation some terms of balance by appropriating more number states to the South-East to make up with the other geopolitical zones.”
Speaking in the same vein, the Pan-Niger Delta Forum observed that the creation of more states could be meaningful if all the geo-political zones in the country have equal states as agreed in the last constitutional conference.
The spokesman for PANDEF, Christopher Ominimini, however, queried the viability of new states, pointing out that states should be created based on self-sustainability.
If the creation of more states became necessary, he argued it should be done equally across the board to even with the North-West, which has seven states.
Anything short of that, he noted, would be a perpetuation of the injustice in the country.
He said a situation where more states would be created to depend on the oil and gas from the Niger Delta region, while other states with mineral resources are allowed to exploit theirs is not the way to go.
He stated, “ Well, it is the right of the people to call for the creation of states. However, the most important thing is that in the last constitutional conference, it was agreed that all the geopolitical zones should have seven states each as it is in the North-West.
“So, the South -East should have additional two states so that it would be seven states. The South- West should have additional states to make it seven states.
He added, “But the question we want to ask is ‘will the states be viable?’ Do they have the means of survival if the vision of our forefathers are kept to? Because the vision of our forefathers who fought for the independence of this country is that the various states should control their resources and pay tax to the centre.”
Amid the agitations, the question remains whether the country facing the challenges of lean resources and high cost of governance can cope with as high as 64 states even when 24 of the existing 36 states are dependent on monthly allocation from the federation account to pay salaries of their workers.
This is aside from the fear that the exercise could fuel tension among the ethnic nationalities and further polarise the country.
According to BudgIT, the 24 states whose wage bills surpassed their IGR are Bayelsa, Ondo, Yobe, Sokoto, Taraba, Plateau, Oyo, Niger, Nasarawa, Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Gombe, Ekiti, Ebonyi, Borno, Benue, Bauchi, Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Cross River, Abia, and Delta.
On his part, Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, believes the agitation for the creation of additional states is in tandem with the desire of the ruling elites to satisfy their selfish interests.
He said: “If they like, let them lobby for the creation of one thousand states in Nigeria. We know some of them are looking for where to steal and carry out impunity and recklessness. Nigerians believe that such demands and the agitation have no developmental agenda but are anchored on greed and power for looting.
“Otherwise, even the present states, most of them are parasitic by their very nature and incapable of providing good governance and exploring economic opportunities for their people to develop.
“There is no plan for wealth creation, no industrialisation plan, no urban and rural development plans, no provision for social security, education, healthcare, infrastructures, agricultural development and services for human dignity and well-being. No one should listen to them.”
A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr Osita Okechukwu, identified the marginalisation of the various ethnic nationalities in the country for the clamour for the creation of additional states.
According to him, “The agitation for the creation of more states in Nigeria is a process, not a destination. I am one of the proponents because of the syndrome of bandits of multi-colours, where in each state, one ethnic or sub-ethnic group dominates the rest. Naturally, in this circumstance, the rest will continue to agitate for new states because of marginalisation.
“The banditry I mean is that of one group taking unfair advantage of others and when this scenario of recklessly taking advantage of others continues it breeds marginalisation and trust deficit.”
He said trust deficit and marginalisation will continue to generate agitation for more states. This is why for instance the South-East agitates for one more state to level with others and more if others are given more.
With the ongoing debate over the proposed creation of additional 31 states, the common ground that cuts across every position is equity, fairness and justice. The review of the constitutional needs to take cognisance of imbalance in the Nigerian socio-political configuration. A balkanization of the existing structure without addressing pressing demand for fairness is like a move in the wilderness. Therefore, the initiators of the move should let true federalism holds way.
