The recent proposals where 31 new states are being propounded is paramountly engaging silence, which by all measures is disturbing given the weighty implications such a decision has. Although new states are touted by their advocates as bringing government closer to the people, it is important to carefully analyse the economic, political, social and historical ramifications of so radical an alteration. The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, said that none of the 31 requests for the establishment of new states have met constitutional conditions. This necessitates a logical look as to whether Nigeria truly benefits from further fragmentation.
Nigeria has not been able to overcome its governance and economic problems in spite of its 36 states. Most of the states are not economically viable and rely on federal allocations to survive. The question of state creation should be whether more administrative units will address these core problems or further compound them. If the formation of states was a genuine solution to Nigeria’s governance problems, past experience would have reflected significant development, economic progress, and stability. But the situation says otherwise.
Forming new states involves the creation of new state governments, each with a governor, legislators, civil service, judiciary, and security machinery. This would result in astronomical administrative expenses, such as salaries, pensions, and infrastructure. They will require a lot of funds from the federal government. Nigeria already has high governance expenses, and more states will put further pressure on an already over-stretched federal allocation system.
The cost of governance in Nigeria is among the highest in the world, and a huge portion of state budgets goes to recurrent expenditure rather than capital projects. The formation of new states will only heighten this, diverting funds that would otherwise be used in essential public services such as health, education, and infrastructure development.
As it is, there are 36 states competing for federal allocations; the addition of more states will water down existing resources, compromising funding for priority services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Most current states are dependent on federal revenue and have problems raising IGR. The more states added, the more will be the federal dependency, the more inefficient economies will become and the more likely fiscal instability is to occur.
More states mean more bureaucracy, which can make decision-making processes cumbersome. Nigeria already has governance inefficiencies, including slow policy implementation and bureaucratic red tape. Creating more layers in an already complicated system, making governance more expensive and cumbersome. Far from minimising inefficiency in government, this will only create more room for corruption and mismanagement.
State creation is most often motivated by political motives rather than genuine development needs. The new states could become battlegrounds for political contestation, where varying ethnic and geographic groups vie to be in power. This carries the potential for additional agitation, litigation, and even conflict regarding boundary dispute, leadership choice etc and likely heighten feelings of exclusion among minority groups excluded from the state formation process.
Besides, history has shown that the creation of new states is not a guaranteed panacea for tribal, ethnic or regional conflicts. Instead, it gives rise to further agitations for the creation of additional states, and hence it is a vicious cycle. Nigeria should concentrate on national unity rather than entrenching divisions through excessive state fragmentation.
Nigeria is already a very ethnically diverse country. The formation of new states, usually based on ethnicity, will further compound ethnic divisions and erode national unity. What Nigeria needs at this critical moment are policies that promote inclusivity and national cohesion rather than those that encourage ethnic balkanisation. Our law makers should focus on, improving governance, accountability, and economic sustainability in the existing 36 states, and make them self-sufficient through improved economic policies, to ensure fair representation and equitable development.
Further, the process of state formation has often involved artificial boundaries not necessarily respecting cultural or historical ties; this is liable to lead to social discontent because communities are separated from their historical roots and compressed into new political entities that may not respond well with their cultural identity.
Despite the continued creation of additional states, Nigeria’s development challenges persist. Nigeria has moved from three regions at independence to 36 states, with each round of state creation justified as being required for development and inclusion. What history has, nonetheless, shown is that the new states are typically plagued by economic non-viability, governance issues, and infrastructural deficits. The majority of those states created in previous decades remain heavily dependent on federal allocations to stay afloat economically, lacking the capacity to sustain themselves economically. The issue is not the number of states but the quality of governance and economic management. More states would not necessarily translate to better development.
Other countries have also had the same problems with too much state or provincial formation. For instance, India, as much as it is federal, has experienced inefficiency because of too many states. Successful federal countries such as Germany and the United States, on the other hand, emphasise regional development as opposed to state fragmentation.
In most developed nations, the focus is on strengthening sub-national governments within current frameworks as opposed to creating new administrative divisions. When was the last time a developed country established a new state, province, or territory? Such occurrences are rare. Nevertheless, there have been some exceptions. Canada formed Nunavut in 1999, to give the Inuit self-government. France, in 2016, reorganized its administrative regions, from 22 to 13—a decrease not an increase. Belgium, in 1995, gave the Brussels-Capital Region separate federal status, apart from Flanders and Wallonia. In Australia, the Northern Territory was given greater autonomy in 2016, although it is still a territory and not a state. Advanced countries make territorial adjustments with a careful eye toward efficiency of governance, economic viability, or rights of historically oppressed groups.
Canada’s creation of Nunavut was not a political concession to regional political elites but a deliberate effort to grant self-government to an indigenous nation, acting upon genuine administrative necessity. Unlike Nigeria’s 31-state initiative—where economic viability, reforms in governance, and long-term sustainability are uncertain—Nunavut’s establishment was intentional, in the interests of better administration and cultural preservation of the Inuit.
Rather than forming new states, there should be an effort improving the efficiency of existing states, and strengthening local governance. Enforce autonomy of local governments and empower them to address local issues. If we grant local governments greater control over decisions and resources, Nigeria can achieve the envisioned benefits of state creation—closer governance, regional development, and inclusion—without incurring the fiscal and political expense of new states. The majority of the states are underdeveloped due to corruption, mismanagement, and over-reliance on federal allocations. Addressing these problems will yield more development dividends than the establishment of new administrative units
The call for the creation of 31 new states in Nigeria is not only unrealistic but also counterintuitive. The political, economic, and social issues far outweigh whatever benefit is perceived. Nigeria’s advancement relies on better governance, and not more states.