In this column, last week, I wrote about “The madness which manifests as nothing more than a sickness, to borrow from Michel Foucault, that points at the abnormality that had seized the mind of Abuja, and elsewhere”. I posited, among others, that the madness which manifests in the officialdom has turned our quarters of political governance into asylums of unreason and irrationality. The madness, which now goes beyond careful observations, not only alters the way we now conceive governance; but also profoundly allows us to recognise the degeneracy inside government, the way we judge madness, and understand the conditions for curing the madness of those elected to serve our people. Doubtless, the psychology of madness that has emerged in our political milieu, which deserves careful study by all and sundry, continues to set Abuja apart as a lunatic asylum, as a place where no limits are placed on amoral political acts, and as the seat of power where responsibility to our citizens is constantly replaced with anguish. As it is with the unreason and irrationality that characterises Abuja’s madness, the House of Representatives Constitution Review Committee, in its misguided pursuit last week, exhibited its own madness when it proposed the creation of thirty one new states in a country plagued by economic instability, widespread unemployment, poor infrastructure, and stagnation.
Nigeria’s chequered history of state creation is a stark reminder that the country’s problems are not a result of too few states, but rather too much politics. From the twelve states created by General Yakubu Gowon in 1967 to the nineteen states created by General Murtala Mohammed in 1976, and the subsequent creation of more states by successive military regimes, our state creation journey has been marked by chaos, chaos, and more chaos. State creation is neither a panacea for our crises of nationhood nor a sustainable solution for addressing marginalisation. Rather, it is a road paved with financial burden, increased corruption, and further fragmentation. But, proponents consistently argue that the creation of new states brings about national development; but, their arguments, based on a flawed assumption, collapse with the same consistency of error as the straw man fallacy. If state creation were the key to national development, our country would have long been an Eldorado by now. Instead, the country’s development indicators have remained stagnant or worsened over the years. Education and healthcare sectors are in a parlous state in many states. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), our country ranks 163rd out of 191 countries on the Human Development Index (HDI), with millions of citizens lacking access to quality healthcare and education. The creation of new states will not automatically translate to improved infrastructure or services. On the contrary, it will dilute the already limited resources available, leaving new states even less capable of meeting the needs of their populations. Moreover, the creation of more states risks further politicising development.
State creation is often driven by local elites seeking political relevance, power, influence, and access to state resources rather than genuine concern for the welfare of their people. This has resulted in the proliferation of underperforming states that exist primarily to serve the political class, with little to show in terms of development. The undeniable truth is that our country’s underdevelopment cannot be solved by creation of new states. From an economic point of view, the creation of new states only adds to the already cumbersome cost of governance. Our country is currently struggling to fund its existing thirty six states, with many of these states relying heavily on federal hand-outs to survive. The addition of thirty one new states to the mix will only exacerbate this problem, leading to a significant increase in the cost of governance and a corresponding decrease in the quality of public services that do not exist in real terms. The fundamental question that the proponents of states creation have not answered is: how does the creation of new states address the issue of hunger and renewed hopelessness in our country, with the prevailing poverty rates among the highest in the world and over one hundred and thirty million citizens living in multidimensional poverty? The creation of thirty one new states will not provide jobs, improve infrastructure, or increase access to education and healthcare; it will only serve to further concentrate power and resources in the hands of a privileged few, duplicate resources, as each new state will require its own bureaucracy, infrastructure, and personnel, complete with a governor, deputy governor, commissioners, and a state assembly. Beyond the political class, there will be an entire civil service to pay, new state capitals to build, and the establishment of ministries, agencies, and departments – all of which will place additional pressure on an already overstretched national budget at a time when existing states struggle to pay workers’ salaries, fund education, and maintain basic infrastructure.
The creation of new states raises important questions about the nature of identity and the character of governance of a country that is already deeply divided along ethnic, religious, and regional lines. Creating new states only serves to further fragment our country, creating new divisions and tensions that are difficult to manage. These tensions had often snowballed into conflicts over discrimination against non-indigenes and assets sharing following states creation as were the cases with Edo and Delta states; Imo and Abia states respectively, compelling the renowned professor of political science, Eghosa Osaghae, to admirably ask in his well considered 1994 paper, Interstate Relations in Nigeria: “why is interstate cooperation strongest among states that once belonged to the same region, and why, in the recent past, have newly created states been at loggerheads with older ones? Why is discrimination against “non-indigenes” a major feature of interstate relations?”. Look no further than the shenanigans of state creation! But, the creation of states also raises serious philosophical questions about the future of our country. Is our country destined to remain a loose federation of ethnic groups and regions, each seeking autonomy and self-governance at the expense of national unity? Or can our citizens build a truly united country that transcends these divisions? State creation, especially when driven by ethnic and regional considerations, reinforces the narrative that our various ethnic groups cannot coexist peacefully within a unified political structure. This approach undermines the very idea of nationhood and promotes a culture of fragmentation, as each new state created along ethnic lines further entrenches the belief that the solution to our problems lies in separation rather than cooperation.
Historically, state creation has always been driven by political expediency and ethnic considerations than by any genuine desire for development. The 1st October, 1996 creation of Ebonyi, Ekiti, Gombe, Nasarawa, and Zamfara states brought the number of states to thirty six, yet there is little evidence to suggest that this act brought the promised development to these states, for example. As the current poverty index shows, Ebonyi, Gombe, Nasarawa, and Zamfara states are in the top-eleven states with populations living on less than poverty thresholds. It is instructive that twenty-nine years after the creation of these states, they are still grappling with weak institutions, poor internal revenue generations, dependence on federal allocations, and widespread poverty.
Our country is facing severe fiscal challenges; and with its total debt stock standing at over one hundred and thirty four trillion naira, debt servicing consumes a significant part of the national revenue. Today, many states have become what many discernible citizens describe as feeding bottle states that depend on federal hand-outs sustained by crude oil sales. As the global demand for fossil fuels decline and the competition from other oil-producing countries increases, dwindling national revenue from oil sales makes the creation of states problematic. Rather than creating new states, our legislators should be having a serious conversation about restructuring the existing political and governance framework. The current federal system, with its over-centralised structure, is ill-suited for a country as diverse as Nigeria. A true federal system that devolves more power and resources to the states and local governments would be far more effective in promoting development and addressing marginalisation. Restructuring should focus on enhancing the capacity of existing states to generate revenue, manage resources, and deliver services. This would involve revisiting the revenue-sharing formula, giving states more control over natural resources, and promoting fiscal responsibility. Such reforms would not only reduce the financial burden on the federal government but also encourage healthy competition among states, driving development and innovation.
The proposal to create thirty one new states is a recipe for disaster. It’s a misguided attempt at addressing our country’s developmental challenges that will only serve to further fragment our country, increase the cost of governance, and concentrate power and resources in the hands of a privileged few. What our country needs is not more states but better governance, economic diversification, and a restructured federal system that promotes development and unity. Our legislators must cure themselves of madness and focus on the real issues that prioritise the common good.
