TINUBU, KALU AND SOUTHEAST’S EXCEPTIONAL CASE

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.

We already hinted at the First Republic experience leading to the Midwest Region. The agitation was made a national agenda and subsequently endorsed by the governments of eastern and northern regions. Although the proposal was opposed by mainstream political leadership in the West, mobilisation and support in the inclusive constituencies was high. With respected leaders such as Dennis Osadebe, Anthony Enahoro, Oba Akenzua of Benin and others leading the movement, the ensuing referendum recorded over 90 percent approval. Today, the southeast presents a more compelling case than that of the Midwest. The minority position the southeast has been reduced to despite the Igbo constituting no less than 25 percent of Nigeria’s population, creates an imbalanced federation. Nobody has offered the criteria that justifies degrading the southeast with five states while other zones have six and seven states. The six geo – political zones have come to stay as enablers of Nigeria’s federation since the Constitutional Conference of 1995 and further serve to drive implementation of the federal character principle so boldly proclaimed in the Constitution. But here is the same zonal structure under serious attack. The resulting political instability manifests in several ways, one of which is the IPOB campaign for secession.

There is need to situate the marginalisation of the southeast in it’s proper context. It’s important to recognise the arbitrariness behind the relegation of the southeast to a minority. States and local governments creation during military rule was a power game of individual and ethnic dimensions. In the aftermath of the civil war, the Igbo were taken out of the equation in the armed forces. No known standard yardsticks were used in determining who got what states and local governments. Kano and Lagos States had an equal population of 5.8m and 5.7m respectively from the 1991 census result. But after the Babangida junta’s tinkering with the system that same year, Kano State ended up with 44 local government areas and Lagos 20. It’s a measure of Igbo suppression that the S.J. Cookey led Political Bureau went beyond it’s mandate to recommend creation of a State in the southeast in the Panel’s 1986 report. The Bureau obviously considered a sense of social justice necessity for progressive political engineering. Significantly too, the 2014 National Conference concluded with a call for a sixth state in the southeast. These go to show that there is an unfinished business with the southeast.

 The point then is that Nigeria does not need another round of general state creation but specific, surgical action to remedy the disadvantage of the southeast. And it seems to me that much of the spade work for this assignment falls on the Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu and President Bola Tinubu. As Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on State Creation, Kalu is familiar with the subject matter. He is in charge of certain processes therein, and evidently at home with the terrain. But beyond this official handle, there are other considerations that project Kalu for this role. The Deputy Speaker happens to be the highest Igbo political office holder in the present dispensation. That affords him clout and leverage to influence some policies in government – other things being equal. At the same time, the position places enormous responsibilities on his path. And it would appear that the seventh citizen by order of protocol is keen to discharge the responsibilities of his office. He is not laid-back as most deputies are wont. With regard to the southeast, the Deputy Speaker played an active role in realising the final stages of the Southeast Development Commission. Kalu has drawn attention to his leadership approach from his engagement with Tinubu’s presidency. The Deputy Speaker has emerged as an enthusiastic partner of Tinubu’s presidency; one of the high profile defenders cum publicists of the administration’s policies.

Kalu has publicly praised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for appointing an Igbo Chief of Naval Staff; assigning a key portfolio in his cabinet, Works, to an Igbo. We may well leave the debate on the comparative adequacy of these appointments for another day. The focus, at this stage, is the passion with which the Deputy Speaker identifies with the President’s leadership. In a February 2025 interview with TVC News, Kalu affirmed that Tinubu deserves the title “enyi ndigbo” literally, friend of the Igbo. The Guardian of December 29, 2024, provides more insight into Kalu’s eulogy. “The President has tried for Ndigbo. He is still trying for Ndigbo. He is the only man that remembered Ndigbo after 54 years that a promise of reconstruction, reconciliation and rehabilitation was made to Ndigbo…He came with the spirit of equity and fairness. He is a leader who believes in development.” Perhaps, it’s providential that the foremost Igbo holder of political office at this time is one with so much confidence in the President. Let the Deputy Speaker graciously convert his rapport with the President to realise one more State for the southeast. He will do well to lead a southeast front for the necessary consultations and consensus. This is a task that should commence immediately.

History beckons on the President at this juncture of Nigeria’s journey. President Tinubu is very intelligent. Notwithstanding commendations of the 

 Deputy Speaker, Tinubu would realise that there’s still a lot of work to do in pacification of the southeast. The principle of fair treatment underlined in the quest for additional state is all too clear. And it’s an agenda that weighs far above transient benefits of government patronage. As father of Nigeria’s community, no one would appreciate better than the President the duty to foster a sense of equity and social cohesion. Accommodating a zone that made other electoral choices at the presidential election shows statesmanship. And Tinubu has a history of progressive activism. The struggle for democratisation, restructuring and federalism starting from the Senate of the still – born Third Republic through the NADECO storms; to governorship and the twists and turns of Fourth Republic politics has definitely come a long way. It’s our hope that a leader who has travelled such challenging route, will rise to the challenge of history.

Afuba  writes from Awka