The mixed feelings with which Nigerians received the news, from the House of Representatives, on a proposal to create 31 new states are to be expected. Those in support of new states believe it would intensify and broaden development across the country; while those against fear that the new states may not only be unviable, they could constitute more drains to the country’s purse, given the bureaucracy that would inevitably emerge.
All the fears are genuine, going by the country’s experience. More states can be beneficial if only political leaders can embrace a paradigm shift in their spending habits. For now, that seems unlikely as politicians have not shown any proclivity for prudence. So a more viable alternative is to seek to empower and enable the existing states to make the most of their human and material potential, harness these thoroughly and use the 774 local governments, as well as the regional development commissions to dissipate concrete development into the crannies of the country. This is doable and constitutes a safer growth mode than going through the hog of creating new states. Additionally, there are enough constitutional and legal provisions for states to practise federalism in a way that impacts virtually all their areas. Are governors prepared for this task?
Nevertheless, agitations for new states will not be eradicated so long as development in each locality or state is perceived to be lopsided or uneven. Most states now concentrate the bulk of infrastructural and other development in state capitals and their home towns or villages. In any event, the 1999 Constitution makes provisions for the creation of new states with specific procedures to be followed. This in itself presupposes that state creation is not foreclosed. All these serve as promptings for agitators of new states.
Be that as it may, in a period of economic hardship and soaring living costs, prioritising the creation of new states is insensitive and a distraction from the real issues of the day. Many citizens are disenchanted that the current states are unable to lay the foundation for sustainable growth decades after they were created. It is therefore difficult to locate the rationale to create more states. To date, states go to Abuja for federal allocation, which is insufficient to address the socio-economic needs of the people. Many states are visibly complacent in generating revenue internally, and there is nothing on the ground to suggest that the proposed states would be different in any significant way.
Also, considering that a great deal of time and resources are needed to fulfil the constitutional requirements to create states, it is doubtful whether the 10th Legislative Assembly can accomplish the task before its tenure lapses. The lawmakers barely have two more years before the expiration of their tenure, much of which would be diverted to explore shrewd bargains ahead of the 2027 elections. That has begun in earnest, and lawmakers may become entangled in survival politics and abandon the states-creation exercise mid-way. That could be a costly waste of taxpayers’ time and resources.
Already, the House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Amendment has rejected all 31 proposals for the creation of states, citing failure to meet constitutional requirements. The House has confirmed receipt of 31 requests so far, with March 5, 2025, being the last day to apply. Deputy Speaker of the House and deputy chair of the Constitution Review Committee in the 10th Assembly, Benjamin Kalu made the announcement, with a promise that the legislature is mindful of the needs of constituents, including the demand for states. According to him, “Although we have received 31 requests for state creation, none of these requests met the constitutional requirements for amendment.”
The Constitution, in Section 8, empowers the National Assembly to operationalise the provisions for creating states. The process begins with the request, which is to be approved by two-thirds of members in the NASS and state Assemblies of the affected areas. The proposal is then approved in a referendum by at least a two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand originated. The outcome of the referendum also requires the approval of a simple majority of all the states of the Federation, supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly. That is when the Act of the National Assembly for the creation of the new state shall be passed. A similar constitutional process is stipulated before an Act of the National Assembly is passed to delineate the boundaries of the new state. The procedure is quite a handful.
Taking into view this complex nature of state creation, lawmakers should familiarise themselves with the details. Indeed the clamour for more states is decades old, after the country was forced to abandon the original concept of four regions in 1967, when the administration of Gen Yakubu Gowon (rtd.), divided the country into 12 states. Subsequent military regimes similarly created states and local government areas with inadequate regard for principles of equity and justice. That left many constituents marginalised.
Even though there are now 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory as well as 774 local government areas, some Nigerians logically still want states of their own. There has to be a delicate capping to the idea of state creation. Indeed, the 2014 National Conference recognised the imperative to have a 54 state-structure for the federation and recommended an additional 18 states.
The push for more states is exacerbated by the failure of the present structure to deliver. Yes, the concept of statehood is a fundamental liberty for all persons. However, the deprivations of the Nigerian State entice citizens to crave primordial lineages which cannot be done at the expense of what is affordable and reasonable. Nigeria cannot at the moment afford the burden of an extra 31 parasitic states. There is already too much bureaucracy in the system, resulting in rapacious consumption and corruption. In some cases, demand for new states is only self-serving, driven by politicians’ desire to carve empires for themselves. From experience, having more states may not guarantee development.
The new development commissions recently created by the Federal Government spread across the geo-political zones, can be leveraged to propel and deliver critical development to the people. However, the government must do more critical thinking to generate appropriate funding for the commissions, including the foremost Niger Delta Development Agency (NDDC). Apart from poor funding, corruption compromises intervention bodies. But the government must strive to make a difference.
The existing states are challenged to concentrate on the 774 Local Government Areas as development hubs, now that the councils have financial autonomy. If appropriately harnessed, that could be 774 states in the making, to spread, in addition to facilitating development at the grassroots. The creation of new states may appear fascinating, but it is illusory for development in the absence of fiscal discipline by political leaders. If the development commissions and the local government areas function maximally, there should be less agitation for new states.
END
Be the first to comment