Nigeria’s New State Creation Proposal: Progress or Political Performance?

Nigeria is once again on the verge of another potential reconfiguration of its political map.

Earlier this month, the National Assembly’s Joint Committee on Constitution Review, co-chaired by the Deputy President of the Senate, Barau Jibrin, and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, met in Lagos and recommended the creation of six new states. This proposal, if approved, would increase Nigeria’s total from 36 to 42 states.

The committee disclosed that it received 55 separate requests for new states from across the six geopolitical zones. Under the proposed arrangement, the South-South would now have seven states, the South-West seven, the South-East six, the North-West eight, the North-East seven, and the North-Central seven.

While I will admit that the addition of six (6) new states is more realistic and less chaotic than the earlier figure of thirty-one (31!) that made headlines earlier this year, the motives behind it still need some more examination.

The Official Rationale

The stated reasons for these new states are familiar ones. Proponents argue that they will promote equity, bring governance closer to the people, and ensure that minority ethnic groups have a stronger voice. There are also claims that this will help correct the long-standing imbalance that leaves the Southeast with the fewest states.

Who Is Behind the Push?

The Joint Committee on Constitution Review is spearheading the conversation. Co-chaired by Senator Barau Jibrin and Honorable Benjamin Kalu, the body represents the two chambers of the National Assembly. Lawmakers and regional interest groups have sent memoranda arguing for new states to satisfy long-standing ethnic and regional agitations.

A Look Back: How We Got Here

The debate on state creation in Nigeria is as old as the Republic itself.

During the colonial period, Nigeria was administered as three regions—Northern, Western, and Eastern—under British rule. These broad divisions ignored the country’s ethnic complexity, and after independence in 1960, growing agitation for inclusion began almost immediately.

In 1967, General Yakubu Gowon’s military government dissolved the regions and created 12 states. This was not a purely democratic gesture.

It was partly a war strategy aimed at weakening the secessionist Biafran movement, ensuring more even distribution of oil wealth, and exerting firmer control over local revenues.

In 1976, General Murtala Mohammed increased the number of states to 19. Civilian President Shehu Shagari’s administration later approved the creation of 29 more states out of 48 requests, but the plan was never executed due to the 1983 coup led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari.

In 1987, General Ibrahim Babangida added two more states, bringing the total to 21, and by 1991, he had created nine more, raising the number to 30.

His justification was to “satisfy the expressed wishes of the people and communities agitating for states.” Finally, in 1996, General Sani Abacha created six additional states, bringing the total to 36, where it has remained until today.

Since then, there has been clamoring from some quarters about the creation of new states, most notably in the 2014 National Conference, where it was proposed that Nigeria create eighteen (18) new states and become a 54-state federation—four more than the United States of America, which, might I add, is over 10 times larger than Nigeria in terms of geographical expanse.

From colonial partitions to military decrees, the story of state creation in Nigeria has rarely been about efficiency as much as it has almost always been about control, political leverage, and managing agitation through fragmentation.

The Arguments for and against

To be fair, there are arguments in favor of new states. Advocates say it could improve representation, allow minority groups more autonomy, and facilitate local governance. Those are legitimate aspirations.

However, history and data suggest that state creation does not necessarily translate to development. More states mean more administrative structures, more political offices, and more recurrent expenditure. Nigeria already spends an overwhelming percentage of its budget on salaries, allowances, and overhead costs. New states would add new bureaucracies, not new industries.

Across the federation, most state governments depend on Abuja for survival. Their internally generated revenue is negligible, and many cannot sustain basic public services. Creating six more states in this context looks less like progress and more like a performance, political theater dressed as reform.

The Real Issues Being Ignored

Instead of debating how to divide the map further, our leaders should be asking why existing states are failing.

Nigeria faces a deep structural problem. Local governments, which are supposed to bring governance closest to the people, have become weak and dependent. Corruption, duplication of duties, and fiscal indiscipline have crippled most state administrations. Addressing these systemic flaws should come before expanding the map.

Moreover, the push for more states seems to ignore that the very process of creating them is constitutionally arduous.

Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution sets out an elaborate procedure: one that requires legislative approvals, referenda, and presidential assent.

The fact that such hurdles exist shows that the framers of the Constitution intended state creation to be a rare and carefully considered exercise, not a seasonal campaign promise.

The Politics Beneath the Proposal

It is difficult to avoid the impression that this renewed push for more states is politically motivated. Nigeria’s political class has long used state creation as a means of rewarding allies or pacifying dissenting regions. The question remains: who stands to gain the most from this?

Creating new states is often presented as a patriotic or populist idea, but it tends to serve a small circle of beneficiaries: the politicians who will occupy new offices, control new budgets, and manage new contracts.

For the average citizen, nothing changes except the name of the government house and the faces on the billboard.

My Final Thoughts

Let me be very clear: I believe that the creation of six new states is unhelpful, needless, wasteful, and unnecessary at this time. Our existing states are still struggling to perform basic functions.

Instead of adding new layers to an already inefficient system, we should be fixing the structures we have.

If true equity is the goal, there are far more sustainable paths to achieve it:

1. Share Resources Fairly: Federal allocations and natural resource revenues must be distributed transparently and justly, ensuring that no region feels left behind or perpetually shortchanged.

2. Build Economically Independent States: Each state should focus on developing its own internal revenue sources through innovation, agriculture, local industries, and tourism, instead of waiting endlessly for federal bailouts.

3. Strengthen Local Governments: Empower local councils to function independently and serve their communities effectively. Real development begins when governance is truly brought to the doorstep of the people.

4. Deepen Inclusion Through Policy: Fully implement and enforce frameworks such as the Federal Character Policy so that minority groups can be represented and protected within existing structures rather than through the creation of new states.

5. Promote Accountability and Responsible Leadership: The push for equity must go hand in hand with integrity in governance. State and federal leaders must account for how funds are used and prioritize public welfare over political convenience.

The call for new states by minority groups seeking self-governance is understandable. However, creating a new state for every minority tribe is neither practical nor sustainable.

Nigeria is home to over 250 ethnic groups. To grant each its own state would require over a hundred states, and even then, it still would not satisfy everyone.

The answer is not multiplication, but accommodation.

Our government should focus on building fairness within the current system, not engineering a new one to paper over old cracks.

It hasn’t gone far yet, but if it does, my position is clear, and I will be making my stance known by calling my local representative, engaging civic groups, and speaking out on every platform available to me. Democracy thrives when citizens challenge waste disguised as progress.

And that, I believe, is exactly what this proposal is.