Nigeria Does Not Need New States

By Afe Babalola SAN

IN a widely publicised news report, it was reported that the
Senate Committee on Constitution Review recommended the creation of
20 new states, including Ibadan State, to be created from Oyo
State. In addition to this recommendation, the Committee also
purportedly proposed the conduct of a referendum for the 20 new
states by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
However, subsequently, the Senate publicly debunked the report as
being grossly misconceived and a misunderstanding of the decision
reached by the Senate Committee.

Though the Senate acknowledged the receipt of several Bills
proposing the creation of new states, it acceded to the fact that
it has no constitutional mandate to recommend or propose the
creation of new states unless there is a compliance with the
provisions of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution. The Senate noted
that it “decided to refer the requests received to the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure compliance with
section 8 of the Constitution by conducting referendum in the areas
if the requests supported by at least two-thirds majority of
members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new
State) in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of
Assembly in the area”

While the steps taken by the Senate in acknowledging its
constitutional mandate to act in compliance with the provisions of
Section 8 of the Constitution is commendable, I do not however
subscribe to the viewpoint that the creation of more states in
Nigeria will present any solution to the current socio-political
issues being faced in the country; and if anything, will certainly
increase the cost of governance.

I am not unaware of the myriad of arguments proffered from
different quarters in favour of the creation of new states. Some of
the arguments are that with the creation of more states, governance
is brought closer to the people when a larger territory is
sub-divided into a less-dense populace. Another identified reason
for the call to create more states is borne out of the political
expedience to cushion the the likelihood of social, political, and
economic marginalisation which could easily characterise the
nation’s diverse ethnicity. Also, the discovery of oil and the
attendant dependence on oil as a major source of revenue informed
the drive by the political elites for the creation of more states
which, in turn, created a platform for them to access its benefits.
An author, John Ifediora, once remarked that the discovery of oil
in commercial quantity energised this impetus for the creation of
more states on the mistaken assumption that further sub-division of
the country on ethno-linguistic lines would enable the country to
efficiently allocate its resources in different regions of the
country, taking advantage of each region’s natural and technical
endowments to propel robust and comprehensive economic growth in
the entire country.

Notwithstanding the seeming genuineness of the protagonists’
arguments, one thing is clear: Nigeria has challenges associated
with resource distribution and humongous cost of governance. Other
challenges include poor infrastructure, ethnic divide, security
issues, and failed governing institutions. The incentive for
self-sustenance which was one of the factors birthing the creation
of states woven around the nation’s ethnic divides is,
unfortunately, no longer viable. For instance, the Northern states,
once renowned for their groundnut exportation capabilities, and cow
hide; as well as the Southern states once famous for the production
of rubber, palm oil and diverse articles of clothing, have
altogether abandoned these commercial endeavours in exchange for
the ease of federal allocation. Presently, owing to the centralised
resource control, each of the 36 states in Nigeria rely on Federal
Government allocation – and the fallout of this system is a
phenomenal increase in the cost of governance from inadequate crude
resources. In simpler terms, the limited resources from the federal
government coffers are being used to fund the duplicative functions
of 36 state governments and the Federal Capital Territory,
ministries, legislative houses, parastatals, and several others. In
all, there is proliferation of governance, dissipation of limited
resources, creation of avenues for systemic corruption and
unnecessary bureaucracy, and the consistent failure of the federal
government to actuate its target infrastructural development.
Without any doubt, the idea for the addition of 20 more states to
the existing 36 is one which can bring the nation’s economy to its
knees as such would require more funding from the central
government to sustain the cost of governance alone.

As shown by the history, the creation of states in Nigeria prior
to the 1999 Constitution was by military fiat. In 1976, General
Murtala Mohammed created 19 states, including Lagos and Oyo; in
1987 and 1991, General Ibrahim Babangida altogether created 12
states, including Akwa Ibom State, and in 1996, General Sani Abacha
created six more states – totalling 36, and one Federal Capital
Territory. Against the backdrop of the foregoing realities,
particularly the over-dependence of the states on Federal
Government allocation and the consequent cost of governance, among
others, it is, perhaps, soothing that the extant provisions of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 seeks to curb
the proliferation of states – it seemingly presents a major hurdle
before any new state can be created in Nigeria.

Constitutional requirement for the creation of more
states

Section 8(1) of the Constitution details a self-explanatory
procedure for the creation of new states, as follows: 8.(1) 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; (c) 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; and (d)
the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds
majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.

Conclusion

To date, the country is yet to experience the benefits of the
proliferation of states. Rather, some of the worst social, security
and economic indices in the world have been associated with
Nigeria. Nigeria still ranks high in recognised corruption and
poverty indexes, without any viable economic plan to navigate the
nation out of the murky waters. Certainly, the creation of more
states cannot be a solution to any of the challenges bedevilling
the nation. As rightly observed by an author, Ifediora, the country
is in various stages of economic and social stress, plagued by
environmental decay, decrepit infrastructure, unsustainable
debt-load, poorly educated workforce, a failing educational system,
and a healthcare sector that is all but non-existent. If any at
all, I opine that the 36 states ought to be collapsed into a fewer,
more manageable number, or regions rather than continuously funding
dysfunctional, proliferated state governments with no tangible
contribution to national development. One thing is sure – the
creation of more states in Nigeria will be counterproductive to
effective and sustainable economic growth. But with the
restructuring of the socio-political current system, more can be
achieved than a recourse to the creation of more states.

AARE AFE BABALOLA, OFR, CON, SAN, FCIArb., FNIALS, LL.D
(Lond.)

By Afe Babalola SAN

IN a widely publicised news report, it was reported that the
Senate Committee on Constitution Review recommended the creation of
20 new states, including Ibadan State, to be created from Oyo
State. In addition to this recommendation, the Committee also
purportedly proposed the conduct of a referendum for the 20 new
states by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
However, subsequently, the Senate publicly debunked the report as
being grossly misconceived and a misunderstanding of the decision
reached by the Senate Committee.

Though the Senate acknowledged the receipt of several Bills
proposing the creation of new states, it acceded to the fact that
it has no constitutional mandate to recommend or propose the
creation of new states unless there is a compliance with the
provisions of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution. The Senate noted
that it “decided to refer the requests received to the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure compliance with
section 8 of the Constitution by conducting referendum in the areas
if the requests supported by at least two-thirds majority of
members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new
State) in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of
Assembly in the area”

While the steps taken by the Senate in acknowledging its
constitutional mandate to act in compliance with the provisions of
Section 8 of the Constitution is commendable, I do not however
subscribe to the viewpoint that the creation of more states in
Nigeria will present any solution to the current socio-political
issues being faced in the country; and if anything, will certainly
increase the cost of governance.

I am not unaware of the myriad of arguments proffered from
different quarters in favour of the creation of new states. Some of
the arguments are that with the creation of more states, governance
is brought closer to the people when a larger territory is
sub-divided into a less-dense populace. Another identified reason
for the call to create more states is borne out of the political
expedience to cushion the the likelihood of social, political, and
economic marginalisation which could easily characterise the
nation’s diverse ethnicity. Also, the discovery of oil and the
attendant dependence on oil as a major source of revenue informed
the drive by the political elites for the creation of more states
which, in turn, created a platform for them to access its benefits.
An author, John Ifediora, once remarked that the discovery of oil
in commercial quantity energised this impetus for the creation of
more states on the mistaken assumption that further sub-division of
the country on ethno-linguistic lines would enable the country to
efficiently allocate its resources in different regions of the
country, taking advantage of each region’s natural and technical
endowments to propel robust and comprehensive economic growth in
the entire country.

Notwithstanding the seeming genuineness of the protagonists’
arguments, one thing is clear: Nigeria has challenges associated
with resource distribution and humongous cost of governance. Other
challenges include poor infrastructure, ethnic divide, security
issues, and failed governing institutions. The incentive for
self-sustenance which was one of the factors birthing the creation
of states woven around the nation’s ethnic divides is,
unfortunately, no longer viable. For instance, the Northern states,
once renowned for their groundnut exportation capabilities, and cow
hide; as well as the Southern states once famous for the production
of rubber, palm oil and diverse articles of clothing, have
altogether abandoned these commercial endeavours in exchange for
the ease of federal allocation. Presently, owing to the centralised
resource control, each of the 36 states in Nigeria rely on Federal
Government allocation – and the fallout of this system is a
phenomenal increase in the cost of governance from inadequate crude
resources. In simpler terms, the limited resources from the federal
government coffers are being used to fund the duplicative functions
of 36 state governments and the Federal Capital Territory,
ministries, legislative houses, parastatals, and several others. In
all, there is proliferation of governance, dissipation of limited
resources, creation of avenues for systemic corruption and
unnecessary bureaucracy, and the consistent failure of the federal
government to actuate its target infrastructural development.
Without any doubt, the idea for the addition of 20 more states to
the existing 36 is one which can bring the nation’s economy to its
knees as such would require more funding from the central
government to sustain the cost of governance alone.

As shown by the history, the creation of states in Nigeria prior
to the 1999 Constitution was by military fiat. In 1976, General
Murtala Mohammed created 19 states, including Lagos and Oyo; in
1987 and 1991, General Ibrahim Babangida altogether created 12
states, including Akwa Ibom State, and in 1996, General Sani Abacha
created six more states – totalling 36, and one Federal Capital
Territory. Against the backdrop of the foregoing realities,
particularly the over-dependence of the states on Federal
Government allocation and the consequent cost of governance, among
others, it is, perhaps, soothing that the extant provisions of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 seeks to curb
the proliferation of states – it seemingly presents a major hurdle
before any new state can be created in Nigeria.

Constitutional requirement for the creation of more
states

Section 8(1) of the Constitution details a self-explanatory
procedure for the creation of new states, as follows: 8.(1) 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; (c) 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; and (d)
the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds
majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.

Conclusion

To date, the country is yet to experience the benefits of the
proliferation of states. Rather, some of the worst social, security
and economic indices in the world have been associated with
Nigeria. Nigeria still ranks high in recognised corruption and
poverty indexes, without any viable economic plan to navigate the
nation out of the murky waters. Certainly, the creation of more
states cannot be a solution to any of the challenges bedevilling
the nation. As rightly observed by an author, Ifediora, the country
is in various stages of economic and social stress, plagued by
environmental decay, decrepit infrastructure, unsustainable
debt-load, poorly educated workforce, a failing educational system,
and a healthcare sector that is all but non-existent. If any at
all, I opine that the 36 states ought to be collapsed into a fewer,
more manageable number, or regions rather than continuously funding
dysfunctional, proliferated state governments with no tangible
contribution to national development. One thing is sure – the
creation of more states in Nigeria will be counterproductive to
effective and sustainable economic growth. But with the
restructuring of the socio-political current system, more can be
achieved than a recourse to the creation of more states.

AARE AFE BABALOLA, OFR, CON, SAN, FCIArb., FNIALS, LL.D
(Lond.)