In August 2021, the 9th Senate denied that it had recommended the creation of 20 new states. The then-spokesman of the Senate, Senator Ajibola Bashiru, denied media reports that the Red Chamber had recommended the creation of 20 additional states for the federation.
In the statement, issued after an attempt to amend the 1999 Constitution further, Bashiru stated that the Senate would okay the creation of states only if “there is compliance with the provisions of section 8 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic as amended.”
He said that the constitutional provision on the creation of states, among other things, provides for a referendum by at least two-thirds of the people of the area and approval by a two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.
The statement read in part: “Our attention has been drawn to a media report that the Senate Committee on Review of 1999 Constitution has proposed the creation of additional 20 States. The report is a gross misrepresentation of the decision of the committee on the request for the creation of more states. Far from recommending the creation of any state, the Senate Committee, while acknowledging receipts of several Bills proposing the creation of new states, decided that it is not in a position to recommend or propose the creation of any state unless there is compliance with the provisions of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic, as amended.”
Flowing from the clarifications made by Senator Bashiru on behalf of the 9th Senate and several failed state creation efforts in the 6th, 7th, and 8th assemblies, you would expect that lawmakers seeking to champion state creation efforts would have learnt how to follow the due process. But since its inauguration in June 2023, cries of state creation have never ceased in the chambers of the National Assembly. In the House of Representatives, for instance, the bills have been rolling in almost on a weekly basis. One lawmaker would propose the creation of a new state from state X, and within a week or two another from the same or adjoining state would come up with a different geography seeking the creation of a state by another name from the existing state.
There is no doubt that state creation is not just a vexed issue in Nigerian polity, it is a popular path through which a lawmaker can seize the heart of his people and through which a politician can easily get the loudest praise. It promotes ethnic nationalism and ginger the swagger of regional lords. Going by the lopsidedness state creation has witnessed since 1967, the request for the creation of more states is certain to remain on the front burner in this polity.
In recent weeks, therefore, we’ve been forced to read “request for creation of state X passes first reading,” Bill for creation of state Y scales first reading in Reps…” Some of the bills were even reported by some online publications to have scaled the critical second reading. That’s unverifiable, though. I know that experienced reporters in legislature would not join such kangaroo business. There is no big deal to taking a bill through the First Reading. This is because, at that stage, the bill is just for mention, as they say in court. No debate is required, and no question is put for the determination of the chamber. For instance, the presiding officer will just hit the gavel after saying ‘a bill for the creation of XYZ state, first reading taken’. Unlike when a bill is to scale the Second Reading and the critical question has to be put: ‘Those in favour that this bill be read the second time say hi…contrary say nay…’ Remember this was the stage at which the controversial Third Term bill of President Olusegun Obasanjo era died in the Senate.
So when a legislator starts celebrating the mention of a state creation bill just to tell his people that something is being done about their desire and aspiration for a new state, it is either he or she is playing the populist game or merely deceiving the people. Let me tell those who have been making merry on account of such news that nothing really is being done about their desire for a new state. Maybe it would be harsh to say such people are wallowing in fools’ paradise. As far as the Fourth Republic legislature is concerned, the deepest attempts at state creation were undertaken in the 6th and 7th assemblies. During the constitution amendment exercises of those assemblies, calls were made for the submission of memoranda for the creation of states. Elders from various communities across the country took turns to submit proposals to both the Senate and the House of Representatives, in line with the dictates of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution. But the exercise didn’t scale through apparently because of the tedious procedure recommended by the constitution and the one-cube-fits-all process applied for the constitution amendment at the time. In those days, the constitution amendment bill was taken as a single bill, and all issues were only embedded. Once the executive vetoes the bill, all other issues therein die a natural or unnatural death. I am sure it was the experience of that era that got the lawmakers wiser such that these days, the constitution amendment bills are encompassed in different cubes of bills. Whereby, an executive veto won’t just kill the entire process.
In the real sense, there should be nothing like a bill for the creation of a state. It is only a backdoor attempt to fulfill the constitutional provision. Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, which spells out the procedure for state creation, provides for consensus building, not just within the area in need of the new state but across the country. The Constitution states thus: Section 8. (1) An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of creating a new State shall only be passed if-
(a) a request, supported by at least two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new State) in each of the following, namely – (i) the Senate and the House of Representatives, (ii) the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and (iii) the local government councils in respect of the area, is received by the National Assembly; (b) a proposal for the creation of the State is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated; (c) the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly; and (d) the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.
In all the provisions contained above, nothing tells a lawmaker to submit a bill for the consideration of the Constitution Amendment Committee. So, even if the bills being submitted in their numbers in the House of Representatives pass the second and third reading, they go nowhere as far as they fail to comply with the provisions of Section 8, as reproduced above.
Rather than take the Senate of House chambers as well as their people on a wild goose chase, lawmakers who have been submitting state creation bills need not read the constitution upside down. They will need to embrace lots of consensus building and advocacies in their communities and the chambers, such that they would be in a position to scale the hurdles as contained in the provisions of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
