Arguments for a New State in Southeastern Nigeria
Kayode Komolafe
The push for the establishment of a new state in southeastern Nigeria, while complex, presents a compelling argument. Although numerous factors advocate against the proliferation of new states, the case for adding just one in the Southeast is particularly strong.
It’s essential to recognize that the discussion surrounding state creation cannot occur in isolation. The proposal must be contextualized within the broader debate calling for a moratorium on the establishment of new states. The rationale behind the “no more states” stance is undeniably valid in light of Nigeria’s current political and economic landscape, where the sustainability of existing states is increasingly scrutinized. Notably, only a handful of the 36 states are capable of generating sufficient domestic revenue to effectively govern. The solvency of many states is heavily reliant on federal allocations, especially following President Bola Tinubu’s suspension of fuel subsidies, which has reshaped financial distributions.
Moreover, introducing a new state may not be the most prudent course of action given the rising public dissatisfaction regarding the costs of governance. Establishing a new state would simply replicate existing governance structures, including a new set of elected officials and bureaucracies, without addressing the core issues at hand.
The conversation surrounding Nigeria’s federalism has also raised the proposition of state mergers as an alternative solution rather than creating additional states. Advocates argue that a robust and cohesive federal structure would be more beneficial, as state fragmentation could inadvertently weaken the federal system. A larger federal unit is likely to wield stronger negotiating power in discussions with the central government, fostering a more effective governance model.
This ongoing debate over state creation and restructuring has persisted for decades. Supporters of potential state amalgamation contend that the outcome could result in a federal structure comprising between six and 15 regions. This restructuring dialogue has produced various notable ideas over the years. For instance, Chief Anthony Enahoro, a key nationalist figure, previously proposed a reconfiguration of Nigeria’s 36 states into 14 regions over three decades ago. His vision echoed that of Marxist Edwin Madunagu, who advocates for a comprehensive “reconstruction of people’s democracy,” featuring multiple tiers of governance. Such proposals aim to enhance the principles of citizenship and human rights while suggesting that federal redistributions can alleviate financial burdens on the states.
Since 1999, the topic of state creation has prominently figured into discussions around constitutional reforms, particularly during election cycles. The nature of this debate has evolved over time, tracing back to the establishment of the Midwest region from the Western region in 1963, which remains a unique case of state creation by constitutional means involving a successful referendum. Subsequent state formations, however, were largely dictated by military authority.
In 1967, General Yakubu Gowon redefined Nigeria’s geopolitical landscape by creating 12 states, resulting in a distinct division that comprised six states in the north and six in the south. This move initiated a chain of subsequent reorganizations, including the creation of seven additional states by General Murtala Mohammed in 1976, culminating in a 19-state formation. General Ibrahim Babangida’s tenure saw the introduction of nine new states in 1991, bringing the total to 30 by 1993. The last significant state creation was undertaken in 1996 under General Sani Abacha, with the establishment of six new states.
Despite these structural modifications, one evident truth remains: the Southeastern region has historically faced inequities in state distribution. Presently, the Southeast consists of five states, while other regions—such as the Southwest, South-South, North-Central, and Northeast—each comprise six states. From a geopolitical perspective, forming an additional state in the Southeast is not only a matter of fairness but also a means to foster national unity.
Even with the various arguments against the creation of new states, the potential benefits of adding just one in the Southeast could enhance governance and representation. This proposal should entail active consultation with regional socio-political leaders to ensure inclusive decision-making that prioritizes local needs.
