The contagion of state creation has resurfaced with the fresh proposal to create 31 new states. The agitation is divisive, selfish, myopic, and unrealistic. The lawmakers and their acolytes are concerned with only politics, not development.
On implementation, Nigeria will have 67 states, which is bogus. In contrast, the United States, a $27 trillion economy, has 50 truly independent states.
Proponents argue that this will address political marginalisation and bring governance closer to the people.
History and facts suggest otherwise. State creation has largely been a political tool rather than a solution to Nigeria’s governance and economic challenges.
Crucially, Nigeria needs restructuring, not more states that will further bloat the already unsustainable administrative structure.
The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review recently proposed the creation of new states, including Lagoon, Ijebu, and New Kaduna.
However, this proposal has been met with widespread criticism. Former lawmakers, civil society groups, and economists pointed out that Nigeria’s priority is not to increase administrative units but to improve governance and economic viability.
These concerns are valid, considering that most states are insolvent and heavily dependent on the centre for financial stipends.
The House is playing base politics with state creation. Instead of shooting the idea down, the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, pointed out that no proposal met the requirements for state creation, per Section 8 of the Constitution.
Nigeria had three competitive regions: the Northern, Eastern, and Western at independence. The agitation for state creation began in 1963 with the creation of the Mid-West Region (now Edo and Delta). Initially, it was to weaken the dominant regional political parties, especially the Action Group, in the Western Region.
Yakubu Gowon intensified the fragmentation by creating 12 states during the Biafra Civil War, mainly to undermine Odumegwu Ojukwu’s secessionist efforts in the East.
The trend continued under successive military regimes. Muritala Muhammed created seven states on the recommendations of the Ayo Irikefe panel. Ibrahim Babangida contributed two more states in 1987 and nine in 1991.
Another tyrant, Sani Abacha announced nine states by fiat in 1996, culminating in Nigeria’s 36-state structure.
However, rather than improve governance, this fragmentation has led to unending agitation and economic misery.
Most Nigerian states are financially nonviable. Only seven states, including Lagos, and Rivers generate enough internal revenue to sustain themselves. Most remain heavily reliant on federal allocations to cover salaries and overhead costs.
Thirty states generated only N2.8 trillion in 2024 but spent N30 trillion on overheads, travel, and salaries, highlighting their fiscal weakness.
If Nigeria proceeds with the creation of 31 additional states, the financial burden will be overwhelming. Each new state will require governors, commissioners, state assemblies, and bureaucracies, further straining the already stretched resources.
This includes more than 200 senators at the centre, against the current 109, and more House members. This is ridiculous.
Instead of creating more states, Nigeria should focus on making existing ones viable through fiscal federalism and political restructuring.
Nigeria’s current revenue-sharing model is a major impediment to development. Many states rely on the monthly sharing at the centre for funding rather than developing their economic potential.
In the First Republic, regions retained 50 per cent of their revenues, allocated 30 per cent to the Distributable Pool Account consisting of import duties, mining rents, and royalties, and remitted 20 per cent to the centre. This model incentivised regional economic development and competition.
Today, the concentration of power in the Federal Government has stifled local economic initiatives. A restructuring that allows states to generate and control their revenues—while contributing a share to the federal purse—would spur economic growth and reduce dependency.
Over time, the call for restructuring has grown louder. Delaying restructuring poses a danger to national stability.
Restructuring exists partially in some of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference report, which proposed the devolution of powers, fiscal federalism, and a regional approach to governance. It gave the states control over local governments.
Revisiting and implementing key aspects of this report could provide a structured pathway to resolving Nigeria’s governance challenges.
However, successive administrations have ignored it due to political interests. It is time to put national interest above politics and revive the ethos of true federalism.
The agitators must recognise that state creation is not a panacea for Nigeria’s woes. Instead, the focus should be on restructuring to empower states financially and administratively.
The existing model of excessive federal control has failed. Only a true federal model—where states harness their resources and drive development—can sustain Nigeria’s growth.
The political class is only interested in empowering itself, carving out territories for patronage and control rather than focusing on true national development. The economic realities of governance make the idea of additional states untenable.
The folly of additional states becomes evident when considering the economic performance of existing ones. Many of them have little to no economic base. Bayelsa, for example, has only eight LGAs but produces a significant portion of Nigeria’s crude oil. It is cheated in other parameters like population, number of LGs, population, and land mass.
This imbalance is compounded by the flawed revenue-sharing formula, which disproportionately favours the centre and some states while others generate significant revenue but receive little in return.
Currently, the 36 states share 26.72 per cent of federal income; the centre takes 52.68 per cent and the 774 LGAs 20.60 per cent. The monthly allocation will become paltrier for 67 states. The oil-producing states receive 13 per cent for derivation.
The current tax system fails to reward productivity and economic ingenuity. VAT allocation benefits states that contribute less while punishing states like Lagos and Rivers that generate the bulk of the revenue.
However, restructuring will force states to develop their economic capabilities rather than waiting for federal handouts.
Lagos has set an example by leveraging professionals to boost its internally generated revenue without excessive reliance on federal allocations. Other states should follow suit by enhancing industrialisation, investing in infrastructure, and creating policies that attract investment.
A decentralised system will promote competitiveness and innovation, as states will be incentivised to maximise their potential. This will empower states to manage resources such as mining and electricity, which have been partially decentralised.
For this to be effective, states must collaborate rather than work in silos, ensuring that development strategies align with national economic goals. States must explore their unique values and resources to make them viable and competitive. The agriculture collaboration between Lagos and Kebbi States, which produced LakeRice in 2016, should have been sustained.
Unfortunately, Nigeria has missed numerous opportunities to reform its governance structure. Political elites have continuously prioritised short-term gains over long-term prosperity. A truly federal Nigeria will ensure balanced development and reduce the incessant agitations for state creation.
The government must decide whether to continue down the unsustainable path of administrative expansion or embrace meaningful restructuring that fosters self-sufficiency and economic resilience.
The government and the people should make the hard choice, abandon the obsession with state creation, and adopt a governance model that promotes efficiency, economic viability, and true federalism.
