THE recent proposal to the House of Representatives to recommend the creation of 31 additional states in Nigeria has reignited a long-standing debate about the viability and necessity of such a move. Fortunately, the House committee saddled with evaluating the proposals has since rejected them due to their failure to meet constitutional requirements. This decision is a welcome respite from what could have been a costly and potentially destabilising undertaking.
Nigeria currently operates with a complex governance structure, comprising the Federal Government, 36 states, 774 local government councils, and six regional development commissions. Adding more states would only exacerbate the existing challenges by multiplying cost centers, expanding bureaucracies and heightening the potential for corruption. Over three-quarters of the current states are economically unviable, relying heavily on federal allocations to survive. This dependency is a stark reminder that creating new states has not proven to be a solution for development or equity, as often claimed.
It can be argued that state creation has not substantively enhanced development in Nigeria. This raises the question: why do we continue to pursue the creation of new states? Various perspectives exist on this issue, but a common theme under scrutiny has always been the matter of viability. When new states are created, they lead to the emergence of multiple cost centers. This often results in increased autocracy, corruption and a proliferation of bureaucracies. Consequently, the cost of governance rises significantly, consuming nearly all revenue for salaries and government operations, leaving very little for actual development. Over time, these cost centers can devolve into chaotic entities.
Proponents of creating new states often argue for equity and grassroots development. However, these goals can be achieved through the reinvigorated local government system and regional commissions without additional states. The core issue lies in the inefficient use of resources and the lack of accountability among state governors, who often act with impunity. Adding more states would only replicate these problems, resulting in higher costs and fewer resources for genuine development.
We currently have 36 states, but how are these states managed by governors who act like emperors and remain unaccountable to anyone—even the state Houses of Assembly? It is unlikely that adding more states will change this situation. The requests for new states seem more sentimental than practical and appear to be influenced by some members of the National Assembly. Given the many challenges the country currently faces, is creating new states really what we need? Is that what we truly want? How many of the existing states are actually viable? Each month, they run to Abuja to request their financial allocations.
There is another aspect to the growing emphasis on grassroots development structures. Over the past four years, more regional development commissions have been established, modeled after the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the North East Development Commission. Currently, there are six commissions, each representing each of the six geopolitical zones: South East, South West, North East, North West, and North Central, the latter of which was recently signed into existence by the President. These commissions have introduced additional bureaucracies that incur extra costs. Therefore, based on the establishment of these commissions alone, we believe the discussion around creating more states should not be considered.
However, there may be some exceptions, particularly regarding the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which has a constitutional basis for special status. The FCT therefore presents a unique case. According to Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution, the FCT ‘is to be treated as if it were a state.’ This implies that the FCT deserves special state status, especially considering that the individuals who relinquished their lands for the nation – the centre of unity – are now living like refugees in their own country.
While the rest of Nigeria participates in voting for governors, the residents of the FCT, whose land has been designated as the centre of unity, are unable to vote due to the prevailing governance structure. Their governance is not democratic; instead, decisions are made by an FCT Minister without input from the local population. Given that the Constitution supports this status, it should be operationalised, granting the FCT special state status. The Three-Arms Zone and the Central Business District would remain the federal capital city, while the rest of the 8,000 square kilometers of the FCT would have its own legislature, allowing grassroots participation in governance.
If the question of equity is pushed, then a case could be made for an additional state in the South East to level up with other regions that have seven states, The North West which has the largest landmass, with some states as big as some other regions, however, has eight states. This consideration of an additional state for the South East is basically to achieve regional balance, to align with the principle of equity and fairness. Even then, it should be approached cautiously, taking into account its broader implications for peaceful co-existence and economic sustainability.
Nonetheless, it is our position that the creation of more states in Nigeria is not a viable solution to the country’s developmental challenges. Instead, it would lead to increased costs, inefficiencies and potential instability. The focus should be on strengthening existing governance structures, enhancing accountability and ensuring economic viability rather than proliferating states.
The verdict on the 31 state creation proposals by the House of Representatives committee is a step in a welcome development. Policy and lawmakers should prioritise fiscal prudence and sustainable development over sentimental or political considerations.
Comments are closed.