The circus of state creation

When I first read about the proposal for 31 new states in Nigeria, I had to check if I wasn’t reading satire. But no, this is real – the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review is actually entertaining proposals that would take Nigeria from 36 to 67 states. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

Let’s put this in perspective. We’re talking about creating new states at a time when most existing ones can barely pay salaries. Many governors are essentially running to Abuja every month with a begging bowl, waiting for federal allocations like children waiting for pocket money. And now we want to add 31 more dependents to this dysfunctional family?

The history of state creation in Nigeria tells an interesting story. From 12 states in 1967, we moved to 19, then 30, and finally 36 in 1996. Notice something? Every single successful state creation exercise happened under military rule. Not one civilian administration has managed to create a new state since independence – except for the Midwest Region in the First Republic.

Perhaps there’s a lesson there about the complexity of the process in a democracy.

The economic implications of this proposal are staggering. Creating a new state isn’t just about drawing lines on a map – it requires massive infrastructure investment. Each new state would need a government house, state assembly complex, civil service secretariat, and various other administrative buildings. We’d need to replicate entire bureaucracies 31 times over.

In a country already drowning in debt, where exactly is this money supposed to come from?

But here’s what’s most amusing about this latest proposal. Deputy speaker of the house of representatives and the committee chairman, Benjamin Kalu, outlined the criteria for state creation with all the seriousness of a headmaster explaining school rules. A two-thirds majority in the national assembly? Check. Support from affected state assemblies and local governments? Check. Constitutional requirements? Double check.

What they conveniently forgot to mention was economic viability. You know, minor details like whether these proposed states could actually sustain themselves without becoming parasitic entities feeding off the federal government’s increasingly stretched resources.

Let me offer a modest proposal. Why stop at 67 states? Why not turn all 774 local government areas into states? Think about it – we could have 774 governors, 774 state assemblies, and probably over 1,000 federal legislators. Imagine the employment opportunities for political jobbers alone! The fact that this sounds absurd but not much more absurd than the current proposal should tell us something.

The perpetual excuse of marginalisation doesn’t hold water anymore. Yes, marginalisation exists, but it’s a symptom of bad governance, not insufficient states. When you have good leadership that governs with equity and fairness, issues of marginalisation tend to disappear. Creating more states won’t solve this fundamental problem – it will just create more platforms for poor governance.

What’s fascinating is how we keep cycling through different political buzzwords in Nigeria. Remember when “sovereign national conference” was the magic solution to all our problems? Then it became just “national conference,” then “restructuring,” then “regional government,” and now we’re back to state creation. It’s like a merry-go-round of political distractions.

Look at our existing states – how many of them can truly stand on their own without federal allocations? Most can’t even generate enough internal revenue to cover their recurrent expenditure. Adding more states would only multiply these dependencies. It’s like a family that can barely feed its children deciding to adopt 31 more kids.

At this rate, why not create states for every interest group? Bandits can have their state in the north-west, Boko Haram in the northeast, killer herdsmen in north central, unknown gunmen in the south-east, and militants in the south-south. Maybe Yahoo boys can get their own state too – at least they might generate some foreign exchange, albeit illegally.

The truth is that creating more states won’t solve Nigeria’s fundamental problems. It won’t improve governance, reduce corruption, or enhance development. Instead, it will multiply our administrative costs, increase bureaucratic inefficiencies, and further strain our already stretched resources.

What Nigeria needs isn’t more states – it needs better governance in existing ones. We need leaders who can transform our current states into viable entities rather than creating new unviable ones. Until we fix the fundamental issues of governance, accountability, and economic sustainability, creating new states is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

But then again, who am I to stand in the way of progress? Perhaps 67 is our lucky number. However, something tells me that even with 100 states, we’d still have people asking for more. In Nigeria, it seems the appetite for state creation is as insatiable as our politicians’ appetite for power.

For now, let’s focus on making our existing 36 states work before we embark on this ambitious expansion plan. After all, having 36 dysfunctional states is better than having 67 of them.