How Many States Do Nigeria Need, By Simon Kolade

The House of Reps has received proposals to create 31 new states across the country. Amazing. If every proposal sails through (which I doubt), that means we will end up with 67 states since we currently have 36 of them. That would mean 67 state governors, 67 state cabinets (with thousands of commissioners, special advisers and special assistants), 67 houses of assembly (with thousands of lawmakers and their aides) and, how do I say this… 67 motorcades full of the latest models of bullet-proof SUVs. With almost every state trying to build a “cargo” airport, we could end up with more. On a different note, someone said with 31 new state capitals, grassroots development will be faster.

At this point, let us take a short journey into history. Nigeria started out in 1914 as an amalgamation of two units: the Northern Protectorate and the Southern Protectorate. Each protectorate was made up of provinces — which are mostly states today — and native authorities — which we now call councils. Nigeria practically ran a unitary system for decades, with the colonial government devolving certain powers to the native authorities for administrative purposes. As nationalism grew and Nigerians became more politically active, internal fault lines also became obvious as politics was played largely along narrow geographic and ethnic lines. There was no Nigeria as a constituency.

By 1946, Sir Arthur Richards, the governor-general, decided that Nigeria was essentially a country of three ethnic groups, so he created three regions: Northern (Hausa/Fulani), Western (Yoruba) and Eastern (Igbo). Every region had vast minorities, but the political construct was that Nigeria was built on a tripod: Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba. In 1947, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the sage, wrote ‘Path to Nigerian Freedom’, famously saying Nigeria was “a mere geographical expression”. Awo basically argued for stronger regions to make the federation work and to build a stronger entity from the geography. He criticised Sir Arthur for not consulting Nigerians before producing the constitution.

Nonetheless, Richards’ attempt at federalism started an evolution. With the criticisms and comments by Nigerians, his successor produced a more broadly accepted constitution, the MacPherson Constitution, in 1951. Nigerians were widely consulted and the constitution led to limited self-rule in the 1950s, when Awo became premier of the Western Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello premier of the Northern Region, and Prof Eyo Eta premier of the Eastern Region. Lagos retained its independent status as the federal capital. We maintained this three-region federation until after independence. It was in 1963 that Western Region minorities got what they agitated for: the Midwestern Region.

Indeed, the minorities in the regions wanted their own administrative units. The Henry Willinks Commission, set up in 1957 by the colonial government to look into the demands of the minority ethnic groups, harvested these sentiments nationwide. One thing that has been clear in Nigeria’s history is that the minority ethnic groups have always expressed misgivings about being subsumed and subjugated by the larger groups — particularly the tripod. When the Gowon administration created 12 states from the four regions in 1967, it killed two birds with one stone: fulfilling the desires of minorities to have their own states as well as weakening the breakaway Eastern Region.

In 1976, the 12 states became 19 under Gen Murtala Muhammed. We did not create more until 11 years later. That was in 1987 when Gen Ibrahim Babangida added two. As we prepared to transit to democracy, he added another nine states in 1991, taking the total to 30. And in 1996, they became 36 states under Gen Sani Abacha. Regardless, the agitation for more states has been non-stop. Those who had initially rejoiced soon started feeling marginalised in their new states. Today, we have 31 proposals on the table of the House of Reps. If the proposals succeed, maybe we would be thinking of 774 states in the distant future. It appears every local government would fancy becoming a state.

Why this unending clamour for new states? I’ve already mentioned the major reason: people feel marginalised in their current homes and would prefer a state where they would dominate. They don’t say the second part openly, but that is a driving force. I have looked at the list several times and I can see no other reason for some people to be clamouring for a state other than the desire to be a big fish in a small ocean rather than a small fish in a big ocean. There is a feeling that if they have their own state, they will no longer play second fiddle. However, the clamour is usually officially anchored on the need for “grassroots” development — which is a legitimate objective, in any case.

Will new states address complaints of marginalisation? That is not a sure thing. Even in states that look homogenous, there are internal divisions. In Ogun state, for instance, the Yewa subgroup of Yoruba complain that they have not produced a governor. If you go ahead and create Yewa state (it was not proposed, by the way), there will still be some tendencies there that will feel marginalised in another eight years. We will start to see divisions along the lines of Ado-Odo/Ota, Ipokia, Yewa South, Yewa North and Imeko Afon. The more you atomise a society, the more you magnify latent differences that were previously not so obvious. They could be religious, historical or lingual.

Will the creation of new states solve development problems? There can’t be a straight answer to that. Some states may prosper and become viable, but others may struggle. As things stand today, many states are not a going concern. If they were businesses, they would have been shut down long ago. Internally generated revenue (IGR) in many states is mainly from government contracts and personal income taxes of civil servants. The IGR cannot pay the bills. The federation allocation — which deploys a formular to make sure no state is fiscally left behind — is the saving grace. The irony, though, is that every proposal for a new state comes with lofty claims of potential self-sufficiency!

Will the creation of new states satisfy those clamouring for the restructuring of Nigeria? This is a question I cannot answer if I am asked. I have been listening to the proponents of restructuring and what I think I hear them say all the time is that we should go back to regions which, by the current configuration, would mean the six geo-political zones. One faction of the restructuring movement wants us to do away with the 36 states so that we would have only six houses of assembly, six governors, six cabinets — and six convoys of the latest bullet-proof SUVs. I do not believe this faction will accept state creation as it may end up defeating the purpose and practice of ethnic nationalism.

Under their restructuring model, the entire Yoruba ethnic group, for instance, will come under one governor. That means the people of Egba, Awori, Ekiti, Ife, Ijesha, Ijebu, Igbomina, Oyo, Ondo, Owo, Ikale, Eko and Oke-Ogun (some will even include Okun) will now have one governor and they will be happy ever after. It is a bit complicated. Oke-Ogun people are already complaining that they are being marginalised in Oyo state and that they have not been allowed to produce a governor. When will it reach their turn if the entire Yoruba groups come under one governor? From their proposal, it seems to me that the Oke-Ogun people actually want more states. I could well be very wrong.

And now to the most important question: will new states be created? Maybe that is where we should have started the discussion from. If you noticed, only military governments have been able to create states — and by fiat. Yet, the Midwestern was created in 1963 under the Tafawa Balewa administration but that is a topic for another day. However, under the 1999 Constitution (as the case was under the 1979 Constitution), it would be easier for Manchester United to win the 2024/2025 English Premier League than to create a new state in Nigeria. The conditions are so stringent that it will take an unusual cooperation and self-sacrifice of the political elite nationwide to make it happen.

Section 8 (1) says: “An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of creating a new State shall only be passed if – (a) a request, supported by at least two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new State) in each of the following, namely – (i) the Senate and the House of Representatives, (ii) the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and (iii) the local government councils in respect of the area, is received by the National Assembly; (b) a proposal for the creation of the State is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated.” Let us take a pause.

Now, in the event that the process gets there, we will go into a very costly and cumbersome stage as required by Section 8 (1) (c) which says “the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly”. Please read again. That means a referendum held in 36 states! Also, a simple majority of 36 houses of assembly must support it. We can then finally move to Section 8 (1) (d) which says “the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly”. The framers should have simply told us not to bother with state creation!

Don’t take my word for it, but I do not know of any governor that would, with his eyes open, allow his state to be divided under him. If the proposals were to improbably pass the early stages, the critical approval by 36 houses of assembly will be difficult to come by. I would rather propose that an extra state is created in the south-east as a political consensus to address the imbalance. We can also create more LGAs across the federation if we are truly interested in grassroots development. Finally, it is important for every state to consciously promote justice, equity, accommodation and peace as we continue this tedious nation-building process. Atomising Nigeria is definitely not the solution.