February 09, (THEWILL) – The recent proposal by Nigeria’s House of Representatives to create 31 new states which I consider as a joke taken too far, has ignited a debate encompassing economic, administrative, and political concerns. This shocking and perplexing development which would increase the number of states from 36 to 67, necessitates a thorough examination of its implications on governance, national stability and the country’s long-term development trajectory.
Historically, state creation in Nigeria has been presented as a solution to various challenges, including ethnic tensions, demands for political representation and regional development aspirations. Since 1967, the country has transitioned from four regions to the current 36 states through multiple exercises, often driven by the need to manage ethnic diversity and promote inclusion.
However, these efforts have largely failed to deliver the expected economic prosperity, with many states struggling to sustain themselves. Most of the existing states depend heavily on federal allocations, and their inability to generate sufficient internal revenue has resulted in weak institutions, poor infrastructure, and deteriorating public services. This raises an important question: If the current states are barely functioning, what justification exists for creating 31 more?
Establishing new states involves substantial financial commitments, including setting up new administrative structures, recruiting civil servants and building infrastructure. Given Nigeria’s economic struggles—ranging from a high inflation rate to currency depreciation—the financial burden of creating and maintaining additional states is not viable. The country is already grappling with a huge debt profile, and expanding the number of states would only worsen fiscal pressures. The reality is that a larger administrative structure does not equate to better governance. Instead, it often leads to inefficiency, as funds that should be directed towards essential services like healthcare, education, infrastructure and security are used to sustain an ever-expanding bureaucracy.
Beyond the financial concerns, there is also the risk of increased administrative inefficiency. Every new state would require its own executive, legislature, judiciary, and civil service, all of which would significantly increase recurrent expenditure. The bureaucratic duplication would make governance even more cumbersome and hinder efforts at national development. Additionally, the process of delineating new state boundaries could ignite disputes among communities, further deepening existing ethnic and regional tensions. Rather than creating more administrative divisions, Nigeria should focus on strengthening existing structures to enhance governance and service delivery.
Politically, the push for new states is often driven by elites seeking greater access to federal resources. While proponents might argue that new states will address marginalisation and bring government closer to the people, history has shown that state creation does not automatically lead to better governance or economic prosperity. Instead, more often than not, it results in smaller, less viable entities that struggle to meet basic governance obligations. In my view, the focus should not be on the multiplication of states but on ensuring that existing ones function effectively.
An alternative approach would be to prioritise restructuring and administrative efficiency rather than expansion. A practical step in this direction is the implementation of the Stephen Oronsaye Report, which offers concrete recommendations on streamlining governance structures. Submitted in 2012 under the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, the report proposed the rationalisation and restructuring of federal government parastatals, commissions, and agencies to reduce costs and improve efficiency.
I want to recall that in February 2024, President Bola Tinubu directed its implementation, demonstrating a commitment to reducing administrative waste. The report advocates the merging of certain government agencies and the elimination of redundant ones, aiming to create a leaner and more effective government structure. We are still awaiting the full implementation of the report because when completed it would free up resources, reduce waste and improve governance outcomes.
Our federal legislators and their co-conspirators in this unserious bid should turn their focus into streamlining government and encourage existing states to adopt a similar approach as the Oronsaye commission. We do not need to create more states and local governments. What is required is for our elected officials and public servants to shun corruption and deliver good governance.
