WorldStage– As the push for creation of additional states continues in the country, reports emerged few days ago of recent committee-level decisions within the National Assembly said to have approved the creation of six new states. While this is not a final passage of the proposal, and the committee’s function having been dubbed as misreported, it however represents a preliminary recommendation from a joint committee, not a full legislative approval.
In spite of the process for creating new states in Nigeria considered as complex and involving several more stages of constitutional amendment that require broad national support, there has continued to be rebound of attempts at the it, even though many people question the genuineness of intention or otherwise of those championing it.
Current attempt is coming at the heel of the National Assembly’s Joint Committee on Constitution Review retreat held in Lagos in late October 2025. At the meeting, the committee passed several resolutions, including a recommendation to create six additional states—one for each of the country’s six geopolitical zones.
During the review, the committee established a sub-committee to determine which of the various submitted requests for state creation will be adopted on the basis of balancing regional representation and following up on initial proposals. A key motivation for the recommendation was to grant an additional state to the South-East zone, bringing it to par with other zones that have six states. Currently, the North-West has seven states while the South-East has only five. Some media outlets have published lists of potential new states under consideration, drawn from earlier submissions. These lists include states like Ijebu and Ibadan (South-West), Anim and Adada (South-East), Okura and Apa (North-Central), and others. However, the committee has not finalized which specific states will be created.
Though the reports claiming passage of creation of six new states have been dismissed as premature and do not reflect the full constitutional process given the rigorous, multi-stage amendment of the Nigerian Constitution as outlined in Section 8 with regard to creating a new state, there was actual consideration of the proposal by the NASS committee.
Arguments for creation of additional states in the country are deemed by many as primarily driven by the desire to address perceived imbalances in power, resources, and representation.
Agitation against one of such imbalances has been based on the question of how a single region (north) out of four at Independence ended up having 19 states while the remaining three in the southern part of the country are left with 17. Hence agitators contest that creating more states will be a way to correct the historical imbalances in the number of states per geopolitical zone. For instance, arguments for new states in the South-East often cite its fewer states compared to other zones, arguing for parity to ensure justice and equity.
The debate over state creation is deeply rooted in Nigeria’s history, with demands for new states dating back to the colonial era, driven by fears of domination by majority ethnic groups. Besides, most states were created under military regimes which had often been done to serve strategic political interests, weaken opposition, or consolidate power.
But as justifiable as some of the arguments for additional states creation are, how it can be achieved when the rigid procedural provisions as entrenched in the constitution is considered has left many conclude that those championing it are merely chasing shadow.
Processes involved in state creation:
Request: A request for a new state must be supported by a two-thirds majority of representatives from the affected area in the National and State Houses of Assembly and the local government councils.
Referendum: The proposal must be approved by a two-thirds majority in a referendum of the people in the area.
National approval: The referendum result must be approved by a simple majority of all the states in the federation through their Houses of Assembly.
National Assembly resolution: The final proposal must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Presidential assent: The President must then sign the resolution into law.
Reflecting on these stringent conditions, the Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu, described the process as extensive and therefore that the reports of final passage are inaccurate and clarified that the joint committee’s recommendation is just one of the preliminary steps.
Opponents who have argued against the exercise on constitutional grounds include legal professionals, members of the National Assembly, and academic researchers. Their arguments center on the impracticality of the stringent constitutional process as well as the economic and governance issues that state proliferation can cause.
In the discussions, legal practitioners such as Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) and Inibehe Effiong, alongside political figures like Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Benjamin Kalu, have raised significant constitutional objections. The primary argument is that the rigorous and complex process outlined in the 1999 Constitution makes the creation of new states nearly impossible under democratic rule.
Aare Afe Babalola (SAN): This highly respected legal practitioner has voiced strong opinions against creating new states, arguing that it is not a solution to Nigeria’s challenges. He’s of position that more states would be counterproductive to economic growth and burden the country with more dysfunctional governments.
Inibehe Effiong: He spoke out against what he perceives as unlawful actions that undermine constitutional democracy.
Benjamin Kalu: In his capacity as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review, Kalu has been a leading voice explaining the constitutional hurdles to state creation. He stated that none of the numerous proposals for new states met the strict requirements of Section 8 of the constitution.
How new state is created in the U.S (Nigeria’s model of presidential system)
In contrast, the procedure is less cumbersome in the United States of America whose democracy Nigeria copied and took after. In the United States, new states are created through an act of Congress, following a democratic process that typically involves the people of a U.S. territory petitioning for statehood. The U.S. Constitution provides the legal framework, but the specific steps and conditions have evolved over time.
Constitutional foundation
Congressional authority: Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to admit new states into the Union.
Protection of existing states: The same clause prohibits a new state from being formed within the boundaries of an existing state or by combining parts of states without the consent of the affected state legislatures and Congress.
The typical path to statehood
Historically, the admission of new states has followed a general sequence, though Congress may alter the process on a case-by-case basis.
Request for admission: A U.S. territory, through a popular vote (referendum) or a petition from its governing body, formally requests Congress to consider it for statehood.
Enabling Act: If Congress approves, it passes an Enabling Act. This legislation authorizes the territory’s population to draft a constitution and typically outlines any specific requirements for the new state.
Constitutional convention: The territory holds a constitutional convention to draft a constitution that must establish a republican form of government and be compatible with the U.S. Constitution.
Submission and approval: The proposed constitution is submitted to Congress for review. The residents of the territory may also hold a popular vote to approve it.
Act of admission: If satisfied with the constitution and conditions, Congress passes an Act of Admission, which must be signed by the president. This bill officially makes the territory a state.
The process, while controlled by Congress, incorporates democratic principles to ensure a new state’s viability and to reflect the will of its people.
Self-determination: The process is initiated by a request from the inhabitants of the territory, often through a referendum, ensuring that statehood is pursued with a majority’s consent.
Republican government: To be admitted, a prospective state must demonstrate that it has created a constitution with a republican form of government, which is based on the principles of representative democracy.
Representation: The primary benefit of statehood is gaining full political representation in Congress, including voting members in both the House and Senate. Until then, U.S. territories have only non-voting delegates in the House.
Checks and balances: The power to admit new states is checked by the bicameral requirement for a bill to pass both the House and Senate before going to the president. However, there are notable variations in the path as statehood has not been uniform for all states.
In the regard, states of Texas and California represent this variation. The two were independent republics before joining the Union and were admitted directly as states without a preceding territorial period.
State-splitting: Another variation is also seen in the case of West Virginia, which was created during the Civil War by separating from Virginia. This required the consent of the existing state’s legislature (the Unionist government of Virginia at the time).
In overall, admission of states in the United States, historically, was often guided by political considerations, such as maintaining the balance between slave and free-states, as seen with the Missouri Compromise.
State creation in other democracies across the globe
Checks on democratic practices around the world with regard to creating new state also show it isn’t a child’s play. It varies significantly by country, and is usually a complex and difficult legal and political undertaking defined by each country’s constitution. While some countries require a simple parliamentary vote, many have strict constitutional requirements, including referendums and consent from existing states.
Some of key approaches countries take to creating new states
Centralized legislative process: In this approach, a country’s national parliament or legislature has the power to create new states, often with a simple majority vote. India is an example of this model, where the national Parliament can pass a law to form new states, increase or diminish a state’s area, or alter its name and boundaries. A bill must be recommended by the President and referred to the affected state’s legislature for its views, though the President is not bound by their opinion.
Referendum and federal approval: For countries with a federal structure, the process is often more complex, requiring multiple stages of approval. A request for a new state may require public support from the area in question through a referendum, followed by approval from the national legislature and, in some cases, the legislatures of existing states. This is the model used in Nigeria.
Consent of states and parliament: In Australia, new states can be created from the territory of existing states, but it requires the consent of both the federal Parliament and the parliaments of the affected states. The Australian Constitution does not require a referendum for this, but political precedent has made it a de facto requirement. This model has made new state creation in Australia a very difficult process politically.
Taking dispassionate consideration into both the local and global standards set for creating additional state(s) to the existing ones, as it is being chased in Nigeria, it appears it will be easier for a horse to pass through the eye of a needle than for a new state to be created. Many Nigerians are of the opinion that the agitation as well as the pursuit of it is merely a political game and fantasy by proponents, and at best a legislative gamble against reality by the federal lawmakers.
