The principle of fair treatment underlines the quest for additional state in the Southeast, contends IFEANYICHUKWU AFUBA
Expectedly, criticisms greeted the recent statement by the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review about creation of 31 new states. The disclosure which was wrongly presented as recommendation by sections of the media, was later clarified as just list of requests from the six geo – political zones. And all were without satisfaction of constitutional requirements for effective demand. Regardless, opposition to the notion of state creation was swift and widespread. From socio cultural organisations, ethnic associations to political leaders, the proposal met with resounding rejection. Dismissal of the idea was hinged on two main planks; first, lack of economic viability. The second ground was the weakening of States and associated threat to federalism. Not only do the size and resources of affected States shrink from state creation, the fact of multiplication leaves the States puny dots before a giant, federal government. The overviews cannot be faulted. But there’s a unique circumstance, the southeast case, which presses an exception and powerfully concedes creation of one more State in the southeast zone.
A salient point to note at this juncture is that the constitutional requirements for creation of new states are very difficult to accomplish. The stringent provisions of Section 8 (1 – 3) of the 1999 amended Constitution have stood in the way of state creation in over 25 years of the Fourth Republic. Similar conditions were applicable in the Second and First Republics ensuring that new states did not come into being. Yes, a breakthrough was achieved in the First Republic with the carving out of Midwest Region from Western Region. But it was an exception, which singular act does not vitiate the knotty nature of state creation during democratic order. As it is with State creation, so it is with birthing new local government areas. No new local government has been added to the list in the Constitution since the return of democracy in 1999. The reason for rigid state creation process is not far fetched. States and local governments are part of the power structure. Having exercised exclusive authority on the distribution of states through the military, Nigeria’s ruling establishment seeks continued control of the system with the very difficult conditions outlined in Section 8 of the Constitution. Procuring two thirds consent of legislators from the affected areas, approval in a local referendum, followed by approval by majority of state legislatures and national assembly are tough conditions by the conflicting nature of proposed state compositions. In some cases, some towns and local government areas are included in as many as three different requests. The only option in the present circumstances is to treat the issue of state creation, in this case, an additional state for the southeast east, as a national question.