The high demand for the creation of new states in the country, as disclosed by the National Assembly recently, clearly points to a lack of inclusion and perceived marginalisation of Nigerians about governance and development. While it remains doubtful if state creation is the solution to such perceptions, agitations for new states are unlikely to wane until governance is brought to the doorstep of every Nigerian through the implementation of true federalism.
It is hardly surprising that agitation for state creation resonated, yet again, as the dominant issue at the public hearings recently organised across the country. It turned out that separate public hearings by the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, as part of the statutory process of constitutional amendments, witnessed unprecedented requests for state creation across the six geopolitical zones. While the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, acknowledged proposals for the creation of 46 new states, the Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, confirmed that the National Assembly has received 61 proposals across the six geopolitical zones.
State creation has always been a contentious issue that elicits mixed feelings among Nigerians. However, the avalanche of demand for state creation across the country under the present dispensation is seen by many as a misplaced priority. As usual, agitators for the creation of new states attribute their demands to perceived marginalisation and the need to entrench equity and a greater sense of belonging in the affairs of the country. Following the transition from regional structure to states in 1967, recurrent agitation for the creation of more states to address perceived exclusion has become a permanent feature of Nigeria’s political expression. It should, however, be emphasised that perennial agitation for state creation speaks to the inherent flaws in the prevailing polity, which unfortunately cannot be addressed even if the over 300 ethnic groups were to transmute into states.
Notwithstanding the concerns that call for caution regarding state creation in the light of prevailing realities, the persistent agitation, no doubt, calls for the restructuring of the polity to engender genuine federalism. While it is conceded that agitation for the creation of new states is legitimate, provided such a demand is in line with the provisions of Chapter 1. Part 2. Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), arriving at consensus on the number of states desirable, poses a Herculean challenge.
It is pertinent to add that agitation for new states will remain a recurring dilemma unless the challenges of political leadership and governance are addressed. The debate on state creation remains contentious precisely because the contending issues of ethnicity and geopolitical balancing have become accentuated due to the flaws in the federal system.
While agitation for state creation does not translate to a quest for identity politics, there is, however, the predilection to assume that creating more states would address the challenge of marginalisation, which is inexorably tied to the failure of leadership and governance deficit. There is no ignoring the fact that the creation of new states on account of perceived marginalisation is not a cure for the ills of politics and the failure of governance. More worrisome, however, is that agitation for state creation tends to ignore the fact that the challenge of marginalisation is a feature of the failure of governance. While the pervasive agitation for state creation partly speaks to the underbelly of dissatisfaction with the prevailing federal system, there is no guarantee that additional states will serve as a panacea to the hydra-headed challenge.
It is, therefore, particularly disturbing that the deluge of demand for state creation under the present dispensation is not only following in the pattern of previous nebulous agitation but appears to have crossed the boundaries of moderation. It is worrisome that some of the agitation is not only irrational on the face value but appears patently infeasible! There is no denying that Nigeria, with the prevailing 36-state structure, is already faced with enormous challenges bordering on over-bloated bureaucracy and the high cost associated with servicing the offices of political actors and hangers-on.
Unfortunately, politics in Nigeria has become the only thriving business with the governance space increasing, assuming the turf for transactions where a retinue of actors finds survival on account of political appointments and patronages. Even in situations where the justification for state creation appears compelling, it is regrettable that the prevailing abysmal politics, which enhances access to sinecure by the elite, appears to be a major incentive for some of the agitation. It should be interesting that most of the misgivings about marginalisation within the existing state would be reenacted even if some of the new states were to be created.
It is our opinion that addressing concerns of marginalisation should not absolutely be tied to the state creation precisely because perpetrators of marginalisation at sub-national levels are united by common politics of co-optation and patronages which often leave the masses perpetually marginalised; irrespective of their ethno-religious persuasion.
From all indications, the motive of most of the agitations appears rooted in ethnic identity, which makes such demand challenging, considering the mutual suspicions among ethnic nationalities. More importantly, it is imperative to assert that agitations for state creation should not ignore the overriding consequences of infeasible sub-nationals on the altar of primordial issues of ethnic identities. Nothing makes the agitation for the creation of new states come across as a misplaced priority than the fact that existing states have not been adequately managed in line with the overarching objectives of fiscal responsibility towards making governance meet the expectations of the grassroots.
