State Creation: A Misplaced Priority

The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review’s proposal to create 31 additional states, bringing Nigeria’s total to 67, reflects a troubling disconnect from current economic realities.
At a time when most existing states are struggling to meet basic financial obligations, this move is not just ill-timed—it represents a dangerous misreading of national priorities and challenges.

The evolution of state creation in Nigeria offers a sobering historical lesson. From 12 states in 1967, the number increased to 19, then 21, 30, and finally 36 in 1996. Notably, except for the Midwest Region, created during the First Republic, all subsequent state creation exercises were carried out under military regimes. These decisions were often driven by political patronage rather than economic considerations, with little attention paid to viability and sustainability.

The current state of Nigeria’s federating units paints a grim picture of financial dependency. Most states remain heavily reliant on federal allocations, with many unable to meet even basic obligations, such as salary payments, without federal support. The widespread bailouts required during former President Muhammadu Buhari’s first term, when states were unable to pay workers’ salaries, stand as a stark reminder of this financial precarity.

This chronic dependence on federal support exposes the structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s federal system and raises serious questions about the wisdom of creating additional administrative units.
The proposal for 31 new states appears particularly tone-deaf given the growing national consensus on the need to reduce governance costs.

Nigeria’s current administrative structure already consumes an outsized portion of national resources through recurrent expenditure, leaving little for critical development projects. Creating more states would only exacerbate this problem, multiplying bureaucracies and increasing overhead costs at a time when the nation can least afford such extravagance.

While the committee has outlined criteria for state creation—including the requirement for a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and backing from affected state assemblies—these procedural requirements sidestep the fundamental question of economic viability. Previous state creation exercises ignored critical factors such as sustainable internally generated revenue, cultural affinity, availability of skilled manpower, and entrepreneurial capacity. The result has been the creation of administratively expensive but economically weak states that remain perpetual burdens on the federal purse.

In the considered opinion of this newspaper, the only exception that might merit consideration is the creation of an additional state in the South East to achieve parity with other regions, which have six states each. This singular case could address a legitimate concern about regional balance and equity in the federation. However, even this should be approached with careful consideration of economic viability rather than political expediency.

In our view, what Nigeria needs now is not more states but a fundamental restructuring that strengthens existing states and makes them economically viable. The focus should be on developing mechanisms for states to harness their natural resources, expand their revenue base, and reduce dependence on federal allocations. This may include constitutional amendments that devolve more powers to states in areas such as mining, power generation, and internal security.

The proposal also raises questions about timing and priorities. Nigeria faces numerous pressing challenges, including widespread insecurity, economic instability, high unemployment, and decaying
infrastructure. Creating new states would divert attention and resources from these critical issues while adding new layers of bureaucracy and expense to an already bloated governance structure.

Moreover, the experience of existing states shows that merely creating new administrative units does not automatically translate to development or improved governance. Many states struggle with basic development indicators despite decades of existence. The challenge lies not in the number of states but in the efficiency and effectiveness of governance structures.

The House of Representatives would better serve the nation by channeling its energy toward initiatives that promote fiscal responsibility, reduce recurrent expenditure, and enhance the productivity of existing states. This could include legislative frameworks that encourage states to develop their economic potential, improve revenue generation, and implement cost-saving measures in governance.

As Nigeria grapples with pressing challenges such as insecurity, economic instability, and infrastructure deficits, the proposition to create more states is a dangerous distraction from real priorities. It is time for the country’s political leadership to demonstrate courage by addressing the structural inefficiencies in the current system rather than creating new administrative units that will further strain limited resources.
The path to Nigeria’s development lies not in multiplying administrative units but in making existing ones work efficiently.

This requires political will, creative thinking, and a commitment to economic viability over political expediency. The House of Representatives should shelve this ill-timed proposal and focus instead on initiatives that will strengthen, not fragment, the federation.

Creating new states without addressing the fundamental issues that make current ones unviable is akin to subdividing poverty—it solves nothing while creating more problems.