Agitating for states creation in a democracy

One of the contentious topics in today’s political space is the clamour to create more states. According to the House of Representatives, it has received as many as 30 applications for new states, which were drafted in form of private member bills.

As of last week, Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, explained that the applications were not done in line with the Constitution (1999). He said the committee in charge of amending the Constitution decided to extend deadline for submission of applications for new states and local governments till March 5, 2025, to allow applicants update their entries in line with the constitutional guidelines.

Notwithstanding that challenge of improper filing of requests, the mood in the House seems to favour creation of new states alongside ongoing efforts to amend the Constitution. Even outside the House, the frenzy is palpable, leading to a strong debate on the pros and cons of having more states in the federation.

The Constitution in Section 8 outlines the procedure for the creation of new states. It begins with a request by, at least, two-thirds majority of members of both Houses of the National Assembly, representing the area demanding a new state as well as the House of Assembly of the affected area and the local government area(s), submitted to the National Assembly.

That request (proposal) is to be approved in a referendum by, at least, two-thirds majority of the people of the area demanding the new state. Further, the result of the referendum is to be subjected to approval by, at least, two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for a new state originated.

Again, the result of the referendum is to be approved by a simple majority of all the states of the Federation, supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly; to be subsequently approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of the National Assembly. The same process is to be replicated in the adjustment of boundaries to give constitutional delineation of territory to the new states.

The process appears somewhat cumbersome on paper, but looks engaging. For an exercise that is desired to have far-reaching consequences for constituents and the nation at large, it is important that all stakeholders are engaged. Whether or not new states are createdin the life of the 10th National Assembly and under the administration of Bola Tinubu, will depend largely on the political motive behind the clamour. It might turn out to be a deft campaign strategy for 2027, or a politicalmaster stroke of great historical significance.

However, it is a constitutional requirement that new states shall be created. So far, no civilian government has summoned the will to embark on such exercise that could fundamentally reshape the polity and recalibrate the economic future and fortunes of millions of constituents. It shouldn’t be a thing to be shy of but an experience to behold in a civilian environment. The horse-trading to deliver just one state would be gargantuan, not to mention 30. In the days of the military, states were created by fiat, but let’s see if the polity is mature enough to deal with a potential bedlam.

According to history, states were first created under General Gowon (Retd.) in 1967, as a war-time strategy to keep Nigeria one and contain the complications that resulted from the first and second military coups.

In 1976, Gen Murtala Mohammed raised the number to 19. Gen. Babangida in 1985, raised it to 21 and later 30 in 1991. Gen. Abacha added six more states in 1996. In all of that, there was no constitutional backing or referendum done to seek inputs of constituents. It was all a game of chance and the capacity of lobbyists to demand states for their people. Decrees were used to create states and local government areas, perhaps without due consideration for issues ofequity and fairness.

There are thus historical grievances that have multiplied over time, for which there hasn’t been a deliberate constitutional effort to remedy. There is inequity in the number of local governments allocated to states. The formula is twisted, irrespective of the standard consideration for population and land mass. Bayelsa State has just eight local government areas. Lagos has 20 and Kano has 44, for example.

And so, agitation for more states and local governments have continued. States and local governments are avenues to allocate resources and channels of development. The more states and local governments there are in a geo-political zone, the likely the chances of appreciable levels of development, despite the entrenched governance failure and corruption in the system.

There is physical evidence that communities that benefitted from state creation have experienced growth around the periphery of their state capitals. Backwater districts such as Abakaliki and Uyo that were once appendages to administrative headquarters of Enugu and Calabar have taken on a life of their own since they became capitals of Ebonyi and Akwa Ibom states.

Similarly, far-flung districts in fairly large states, for example, Oke Ogun in Oyo State and communities in Edo North, are still left behind in the distribution of basic amenities that bring government closer to the people. Ekiti and Osun, if they were to remain in old Ondo and Oyo states,could not have accessed the physical transformation they are experiencing, some have argued.

There is one local government in Edo State, Akoko-Edo, that was part of the 12 administrative divisions (local government Areas) created in 1963, when Mid-West was split from the old Western Region. Mid-West was later christened Bendel State in 1976 and later divided into Edo and Delta States in 1991. As of today, Delta has 25 local government areas and Edo State has 18; meaning that the original 12 divisionsin Mid-West as of 1963 have become 43 new local government areas shared among Edo and Delta states.

Just calculate the amount of transformation that would have taken place in the original 12 divisions, new council areas and new administrative headquarters, all benefiting in more than 60 years of budgetary provisions and other funding interventions, local and global.

But Akoko Edo has remained till date the way it was created in 1963. To effect maximum marginalisation, a portion of Akoko Edo (Idoani), was excised to join Ondo State, during the Abacha years. The story was that if you did not know people in the corridors of power, especially during those impulsive military years, you are likely to be abandoned and forgotten. Akoko Edo had been abandoned.

There are more depressing stories of marginalization of people and communities across the country. People’s identities have been fractured, balkanised and denied in the process of creating states and local government areas.

Minorities, mostly in the Middle Belt have had their ancestral lands, histories, religion and traditions administratively cannibalised and systematically subsumed under majority tribes. The damage is colossal.

The 2014 Confab put together by President Jonathan delicately looked into this and extracted commitment to allow minorities have some states. But that has not happened and the damage has enlarged.

As stupid and nonsensical as the agitation for more councils and states might seem, there could be some merit in it when certain experiences of constituents are dispassionately assessed. After all, Nigeria itself remains a piece of work in progress.

Some constituents are asking for the disbandment of the 1999 Constitution and a return to the regional system, which they argue delivered more dividends despite having expanse of territories.

Another side of the debate says the creation of regional development commissions, if well-funded and administered, should increase the capacity to spread development without adding more administrative structures in the name of states.

But if the experience of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), that was created around 2000, to address specific development and environmental challenges in the Niger Delta, is anything to go by, it is feared the commissions may just be avenues topeddle influence and move funds around for the political class.

The Federal Government has always struggled to fund NDDC. Even the North-East Development Commission (NEDC), is not sufficiently funded. Regional commissions may not be sufficiently funded to take over functions of states, whether old or new.

A challenge with having new states, some query, is their inability to generate resources to fund their activities. Even with the present 36 states, not up to five are able to raise own funds without relying on rent and taxes to pay salaries and embark on capital projects. They have no industrial farms or other investment from which they could earn revenue. They depend 100 per cent on federal allocation. This parasitic fate may befall new states if they’re eventually created, many fear.

Also, creating more states weakens the argument for those who advocate for resource control and return to true federalism. Tony Nnadi and his team at the Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-determination (NINAS), argue that the most viable redemption pathway for the distressed federation is to give more autonomy to the people of Nigeria, rather than continue with the present unitary system that is not working. To NINAS, any attempt to further fracture and weaken the federation with more states would be a further departure from federalism.

Coming at a time the Federal Government has secured financial autonomy for local councils at the Supreme Court, civil society activists have advised government to focus on 774 local government areas as hubs to spread rapid development. They say there is more than enough bureaucracy and attendant high governance costs. States and the Federal Government spend more money junketing and living big, with little left for actual development.

On creation of states, let the Constitution be tested as well as the capacity of civilians to move the country forward. If it turns out to be a farce, so be it. But let’s not be shy to debate the future of Nigeria!