Unending demand for state creation

By YEMI OLAKITAN 

 

 01 March 2015

Many interests have mobilised to campaign for creation of more states in Nigeria. These agitations have been persistent and seemingly endless. Nearly every ethnic group has at one time or the other demanded its own state even though most of the 36 states remain economically unviable and rely on monthly allocations from the Federal Government to survive. Ag. Head of Investigations, Yemi Olakitan looks at the politics.

There seems to be no end in sight to the demands for state creation in Nigeria. Ethnic jingoists and politicians keep agitating for state creation in order to address perceived marginalisation of their people in the scheme of things. The campaign for state creation has always been present throughout the history of Nigeria and has continued to this day.

Each ethnic group has continuously come to think of itself as a distinct entity with interests and demands. They want states created whether or not the states have the capacity to survive economically or not. At a time the late sage Chief Obafemi Awolowo mocked some of the proponents of states creation when he said that such agitations will stop when his home town, Ikenne, becomes a state.

According to vocal preacher and activist, Pastor Tunde Bakare of Latter Rain Assembly, only about four of the states in Nigeria are viable. According to him, the agitations for state creation are usually to satisfy ethnic nationalism to the detriment of Nigerian nationalism. Most of the states are wholly dependent on the federal purse for survival.

Olufemi Gbolahan, a politician and native of Ado-Odo Ota local Government in Ogun State observed that “the call for state creation is ever present among us and it is usually as a result of marginalisation and lack of development of certain ethnic groups or areas in the country. Nigeria is a nation of diverse tribes, languages, cultures and religions and each group wants to have a share of the nation’s resources. Nobody wants to be left behind in terms of development”.

Speaking further, Gbolahan said, “The issue of marginalisation is also real. Take the Yewa community in Ogun State for example, where I come from. We have always been marginalised. Ado Odo-Ota is the richest local government and the most industrialised in Ogun State. It is also the second largest and yet the least developed. Ado-Odo-Ota has never produced a governor in Ogun since the state was created and all the past governors have concentrated development efforts on Abeokuta, the capital city. Take Ado-Odo for example, development in Ado-Odo is zero, the roads are bad, there is no university, no college of education, no polytechnic and the town is nearly the size of Abeokuta, Tell me, why we won’t support the agitation for state creation? These are the factors that lead to the campaign for state creation in Nigeria.”

Speaking further, he said, “State creation is good for a nation like Nigeria because of our diversity. No matter what the skeptics say. The states will develop with time and will become strong. Rome was not built in a day. We need states because it creates a sense of belonging.” he said.

Investigations by Sunday Mirror reveal that the agitation for states creation can be traced to the British Colonial Administration with the indirect rule system which was created to suit the purposes of colonial ideology and ease of administration. The indirect rule system encouraged ethnicity since Nigerians of Northern and Southern regions did not interact as one people. The colonial master was more interested in the easy administration of the large entity called Nigeria,

Thus, the phenomenon of regional ethnicity found its way into Nigerian politics. The earliest political parties in Nigeria; the National Council of Nigerians and Cameroon, NCNC, founded in 1944, the Northern People’s Congress, NPC, and Action Group, AG, both established in 1951, were defined along tribal and ethnic bases.

Ethnicity and regionalism became Nigeria’s way of life. It was this development that led to minorities’ agitation for self-determination in virtually all the regions during the colonial rule. Ethnicity has been a re-occurring factor in Nigerian politics since then. This has continued to influence the agitation for state creation. Successive governments also use state creation either as a tool for political self-enhancement, or as a means to gain stronger hold on power.

Nigeria was initially a Federal State with three regions – Northern, Western and Eastern regions, during the First Republic; the Mid-Western Region was created out of the Western Region. These regions were virtually self sufficient depending on mainly agricultural produce and exports to keep their respective economies going.

Historians suggest the creation of that region was aimed at the excision of the non-Yoruba from the Western region. It did not arise from genuine concern by the nation’s leaders for the predicament of the minorities. The reorganisation was part of vindictive campaign by the ruling Federal coalition parties – the NPC and the NCNC to destroy the opposition party, the AG, while resisting the statehood ambitions of minorities in their home regions.

The creation on 27th May, 1967 of 12 states from the existing four regions by the Gowon regime was an attempt to nip the secession of the Eastern Region bid in the bud.

It was as a result of a desire to cut the influence of the then Governor of Eastern Region, the late Chief Chukwuemeka Odimegbu-Ojukwu at the height of hostilities between the Region and the Federal Government. It was also aimed at solving the perceived political problem threatening the continued existence of Nigeria as a single entity.

However, the politics of state creation has not taken into account the ability of these states to sustain their existence.

Also, another set of problems started with some ethnic groups claiming that the new states were highly unequal. For example, the North-Eastern State alone accounted for about one third of the total land area of Nigeria, while the 11 other accounted for the balance. In view of these, Gowon promised that he would review the whole issue of state creation after the war.

This promise heightened the tempo of demands for new states, but no effort was taken to re-assess the exercise until Gowon was overthrown in 1975.

When the late General Murtala Mohammed overthrew General Gowon, he quickly set up the Justice Ayo Irikefe Panel to look into the issue of state creation. The panel received about 32 demands for new states. It was based on the memoranda submitted to the government by the panel that the number of states was raised to 19, on 3rd February, 1976. The 19 states were Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Bendel, Cross-River, Anambra, Imo, Rivers, Kwara, Benue, Plateau, Borno, Bauchi, Gongola, Sokoto, Niger, Kano and Kaduna. The 1976 exercise was implemented in the wake of a phenomenal growth in Federal petroleum exports revenue. Thus, in addition to being a vehicle for extending political and economic self-governance to distinct ethnic communities, states creation became an administrative strategy for the devolution of Federal generosity to an unstructured array of territorial communities and coalitions.

This gave rise to a phenomenal increase in the demand for even more states as various ethnic groups and elites struggled to maximise their share of the national cake. Consequently, the Igbo people argued later that a situation where they had only two states (Anambra and Imo) from the 1976 exercise while the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani, the other two majority groups, had about five each, was unjust and unacceptable. Invariably, the agitation for states creation in the country became a contest among majority ethnic groups, struggling to square up, more than the struggle of the minorities for self-determination. The agitation for more states went unabated during the Second Republic (1979-1983) and the demands for new states were so volatile that none was eventually created till the collapse of the Republic.

When General Ibrahim Babangida took over power in his 1985 coup, the clamour for states creation reached new heights and he set up the Political Bureau, headed by Dr. S.J. Cookey to look into the fresh demands.

It was based on the recommendations of the Bureau that the Federal Government in September 1987 created two more states – Akwa-Ibom and Katsina – thus, increasing the number of States in the country to 21. The Bureau had actually recommended the creation of six new states – Akwa-Ibom, Delta, Katsina, Kogi, Sarduana and Wawa.

In creating the two states, Babangida announced that the demands for new states will no longer be tolerated. However, in August, 1991, the regime reversed itself and created nine new states to bring the number of states to 30. The nine states were Abia, Enugu, Delta, Jigawa, Kebbi, Osun, Kogi, Taraba and Yobe. The regime justified the creation of more states as the need for balanced federation, bringing government nearer to the people, even development among others. However, critics insisted that “the 1991 exercise was largely intended to galvanise support for the regime, whose strength was ebbing and to compensate close allies.”

The agitations for states creation seemed to redouble when General Sani Abacha came to power in 1993. Thus, following the recommendations of the National Constitutional Conference on the need to create more states, Abacha set up a Committee for States Creation, Local Government and Boundary Adjustment, headed by Arthur Mbanefo. The Committee received a total of 85 requests for new states and on the occasion of the country’s 36th Independence Anniversary on 1st October, 1996; late Abacha announced the creation of six new states. This last exercise brought the number of states in the Nigerian Federation to 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory, and 774 Local Government Areas.

The question remains whether the continuous division of Nigeria into smaller, weaker units has actually brought government, power and development closer to the people.

Postponements of state creation have argued that the creation of states brings the government closer to the people because of the population and land mass of Nigeria. It has also been argued that state creation reduces marginalisation.

As result, The National Conference under President Goodluck Jonathan approved 18 requests, in principle, for state creation across the country as a way of meeting the yearnings and aspirations of the people.

The approved requests, included Apa State from the present Benue, Kainji from Niger State, Katagum from Bauchi State, Savannah State from Borno, Amana from Adamawa, Ghari from Kano, Gurara from Kaduna, Etiti State from the South-East zone, Aba from Abia, Adada from Enugu, Njaba/Anim from both Anambra and Imo States, Ogoja from Cross River, Anioma from Delta, Ijebu from Ogun, New Oyo from the present Oyo State and others. The conference said apart from the 18 new states proposed, a separate state-yet-to-be named should be carved out of the South-East to bring the number of the states in the zone to six. The conference said the creation would correct the imbalance of the zone having the least number of states. In the existing 36 states arrangement, each zone has six states with only the North-West having seven states. It was agreed by the delegates that the 18 new states would be shared among the six zones in a manner that no zone would have more states than the other. It was also agreed that states were free to have their own constitutions. The delegates rejected a motion that the number of states in Nigeria should not be more than 55. This gives the impression that in the future more states could still be created.

A delegate, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, condemned the decision to create more states. He said the action was at variance with the decisions and resolutions earlier taken by the conference on the need by government to cut costs. “Having regard to the several resolutions of the National Conference on the need to reduce the cost of governance, I found the recommendation for the creation of additional 18 states rather contradictory,” Falana said.

Another delegate, a SAN, Chief Mike Ozekhome said, “I stand by the recommendations; we have recommended that 18 more states and an additional state should be created for the Igbo, they are the only one with five states. With 54 states I believe that government would be brought closer to the people.”

According to Mrs. Funke Adekoya, SAN, the creation of more states will not solve the problem of underdevelopment. “I don’t think that it will solve the problem of bureaucracy in the society. What I think we should focus on is the delivery of dividends of democracy to Nigerians. I don’t support creation of more states.”

In another chat with Barister Jesica Ikechuwu, she was convinced that the prospects for national development depend on the emergence of a courageous, visionary and national leadership stressing that Nigeria needs a true Federal system. Ikechukwu said, “The center is too strong and the states rely too much on resources from the center.”

According to her, ‘‘the endless demands for state creation will not end unless there is real development in the grassroots such as good roads, electricity, access to education and affordable health care. “Unemployment must be reduced to the barest minimum. As long as these problems are rampant, we will continue to have agitations for state creation in the next two or three decades,” she said.

Pa Ayodeji Ogunjobi, the president and founder of Hope for the Youth initiative, a non-governmental organisation focusing on the problems of youth unemployment in Nigeria, said “the creation of more states will multiply the existing problems – ethnic minority issues, lack of development, corruption, unemployment.’’

He said states must begin to look inwards and generate income by themselves in such a way that they can become economically strong.

“A situation where all the states created continue to look up to the Federal Government for monthly allocation for survival will continue to inspire fresh agitations for state creation in the country. If the states created already become economically strong and prosperous, the incessant agitations will die,’’ he said.

According to Senate President, David Mark, states creation will bring development closer to the doorsteps of many Nigerians. The scope of political development will be widened to accommodate more governors, more legislators, more state high courts, more police officers. More states will also see to the presence of more federal agencies in the states including higher institution of education as well as other modern developmental structures like airports, banks etc. The agitators for states creation maintain that such an exercise will create an opportunity for the marginalised people or ethnic groups to have access to power. They also maintain that by creating new bureaucracies, it will give mass employment to youths and other qualified graduates.

However, current realities indicate that more states could create more problems than they were meant to solve.

According to the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, now Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sunusi II, most of the present 36 States in Nigeria are economically unviable.

Analysing the precarious finances of the states last year, he had said, “Most of the states are spending about 96 per cent of their revenue in paying civil servants’ wage bills. We have created states and other structures that are economically unviable and the result is that we do not have funding for infrastructure, education, health and so on. The unviable status of the existing states has therefore vitiated the argument for more states. Almost all states depend on the Federation Account to survive, and this dependent nature of states makes them subordinate to the Federal centre and negates the Federal principle of local autonomy”.

He had noted that because of the large number of sharing units and the lack of independent sources of revenue, the dependence of these units on the Federal government has virtually impinged on their autonomy and hindered their capacity to carry out independent development.

Other analysts also point to the fact that reduction in land space that comes with carving out new state from existing ones, implies a drastic reduction in the economic power and activities of the states.

Addressing the effect of incessant state creation on the autonomy of the state and true fiscal Federalism in Nigeria, former Vice President Alex Ekwueme observed that, “the increase in the number of states has tended to reduce the states to a level where they have virtually ceased to function as component, autonomous and cognate units in a Federal polity.”

Investigations reveal that there are many federations with higher populations, larger land mass, ethnic and other diversities, higher GDP and higher internally generated revenue by the federating units, yet, have less states than Nigeria.

Indeed, if Nigeria were a federating unit in the United States of America, she would have been the 25th state, in the ranking of the US States by their GDP after Louisiana. Nigeria’s GDP is less than five per cent of the US national GDP.

According to Elder Theophilus Ajibola, an educationist, “State creation if not controlled will not move the country forward. States creation is not, in the least, an answer to the myriad problems the country is facing. Previous exercises have never been done from the perspective of bringing government and development closer to the people. Rather, it has been to score some political goals and satisfy particular interests. A constitutional adjustment that will ensure true federalism, rather than creating unviable and dependent states will help develop the nation economically.”

Speaking further, Ajibola said, the states should be allowed to control up to 50 per cent of their resources. “This will reduce the number of agitations for new states because many of the proposed new states have no economic basis to sustain themselves, except their dependence on federal revenue. It will also encourage states to look inward for internally generated revenue thereby diversifying the economy”, he said.

Sunday Mirror investigations reveal that to actually get the government and development to the people, there is need to reposition the local governments, which is the closest tier of government to the grassroots. The local governments are operating under the strangulating control of state governors. They are centers of corruption and mediocrity. The powers and functions of the local government system should be enshrined in the Constitution and their finances ensured.

Some other commentators point to the fact that new state will only end up as additional cost centres, which Nigeria cannot afford.

In a nation where electricity remains epileptic and industries are relocating to neighboring countries for a more efficient operational base, creation of more states will further raise the already high cost of governance in the country.

Each of the states to be created will become a new cost centre to the federation account. The newly created states will need fresh civil service of their own, a legislature, governor, aides to the governor, commissioners, local governments etc. All these are new cost centers to the federation.

At the moment, both the federal and state governments spend close to 70 per cent of their annual budgets on salaries and cost of running the government. There is little or nothing left for infrastructure and other social services. The result is the high level of under-development in the country.

State governments cannot even pay the N18,000 minimum wage approved for civil servants by the Federal Government. As more states are created, the share of the states from the federation account diminishes.

The consensus however is that creation of new states in Nigeria has had both negative and positive effects on the wheels of governance in Nigeria at different periods.

However, despite the present situation, the creation of states in Nigeria has gone a long way in fostering unity, minimising conflicts, and bringing government closer to the people, avoiding domination of the country by one section of the state by another and ensuring a reasonable level of economic development of all parts.

Another impact of state creation in the business of governance in Nigeria is the fact that the practice has enhanced greater political participation by local governments.

As more states were created in Nigeria, grassroots participation in government and development has increased. The people at the local level benefit directly from the creation of states as they feel less dominated within the existing structure.

If the rationale behind the creation of new states is sincere and effectively applied, there would be healthier economic development and effective collaborations among the various tiers of government in Nigeria, as some have argued.

Apparently, the report of the National Conference indicates that Nigerians are not done yet and state creation will likely remain a key feature of political dialogue for some time to come.