NOT a few Nigerians were jolted last week Thursday on receiving the news that the House of Representatives had proposed the creation of 31 new states across Nigeria. This is a move which after undergoing the legislative scrutiny and constitutional hurdles will significantly alter the country’s political and administrative landscape. It will also be increasing Nigeria’s cost of governance with about a hundred percent with no prospects of positively impacting on the nation’s ailing economy. Come to think of it, only a few of the existing 36 states can be said to be economically viable while the rest are currently operating under the weight of crippling debt burden
The announcement of the proposed States creation was made during plenary by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu who was reading a letter from the Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution. The development was received in Delta with a mixed bag of reactions and profound feelings of imperceptibility. Warri State was reported to have made the list while Anioma which Sen Ned Nwoko had given the public impression that it is the most anticipated State failed to make the list. This indeed speaks volumes about the fuss and media buzz the maverick Senator was making concerning the Anioma State agenda without the necessary legislative networking and political spade work being put in an active and constructive mode. Anioma State to the Senator became a political trump card to rally for relevance to actualize an envisioned fiefdom. Many considered the recommendation of the House of Assembly as ridiculously diversionary. The people expect the National Assembly to come up with bills that can create jobs and revive the economy so that criminality can be stemed. This is not the best of time for a National Assembly to be engaging in fruitless jamboree and political circuit show.
Right from Nigeria’s independence in 1960, calls for the creation of “new” states have often assumed the tone and dimension of agitation. This is understandable as States and Local governments have remained the structures for the sharing of the Commonwealth. This is the sharing culture as against the renewed calls for compliance to the tested tenets and principles of true federalism. Many have however claimed that the continuous clamour for States is informed by the need to provide administrative voices for minority ethnic interests as well as increased networks for patronage. Beginning with three, then four regions prior to the Nigerian Civil War (1966-70),
the Nigerian Federation was later divided into 12 states in May 1967. The federation grew to 19 states by March 1976, 21 states plus a new federal capital territory at Abuja by 1987, 30 states by August 1991 and 36 states by 1996. Creating more states out of a constant land area can be seen as an attempt on one hand to blur the country’s regional, ethnic and religious distinctions and on the other, to create additional “patronage fiefdoms” which cut into regional power bases of traditional political elites. Last Thursday’s announcement once again brought to the fore the debate on the structure, adequate number and the viability of the existing states in Nigeria’s federation amidst mounting economic challenges. Opinions have variously been expressed to the effect that the current fragmentation of the geopolitical entity called Nigeria is a confirmation of lack of consensus in the forging together of the country as a sovereign. Nigerians have expected the National Assembly to critically address the core structural issues plaguing Nigeria and not to engage in initiatives that appear to be mere political exercise that will further weaken governance and deepen economic inefficiencies. The current propositions stoutly negate the principle of genuine fiscal federalism, similar to what Nigeria’s founding fathers agreed upon at the dawn of independence. Creation of more states without a viable economic foundation will only compound the financial burden on the nation. This is so because many existing states are merely struggling to generate sufficient Internally Generated Revenue and are currently relying heavily on federal allocations to survive.
The solution to Nigeria’s problems obviously does not rest in turning every local government into a State. The real issue does not rest in the number of states but the dysfunctional federal structure that has concentrated so much power at the centre, thereby stifling regional development.
Nigeria needs a system where states or regions control their resources and contribute an agreed percentage to the federal government, just as it was during the First Republic. This is the only path to sustainable development, not this reckless jamboree of creation of more administrative units.
To some however, the proposed creation of new states can be seen as a significant step towards addressing the historical deep seated injustices and imbalances in the country’s governance structure. Historically there can never be an end to agitations for creation of new States. This is founded on the expectation that the more the States, the brighter the possibilities for administrative jobs. The danger in this reasoning can be seen playing out in the multiplicity of the Local governments whose developmental impacts are hardly ever felt.
Nigeria currently has 774 local governments, which are struggling to deliver basic services. Many cannot pay the salaries of their staff. The average citizen needs a working economy with improved infrastructure for quality living. He needs a secured nation that presents viable hope not political polemics. Let’s create opportunities for growth and development rather than the current exercise in fragmentation that could end up in futility.
