Opinion
By Emmanuel Onwubiko
ARISTOTLE one of the fathers of Ancient philosophy, famously says that practical reason grasps our ends, deliberately about how to achieve those ends in a more-or-less specific situation, then makes a decision about what to do. In Pluto’s conception, by contrast, reason is itself a motive force and has its own interests. But the real ends of reason are not extraneous to itself. The idea as the objectification and the objective and independent correlative of all knowledge, is the highest object of the strongest desire.
Flowing from these profound ideas of these distinguished fathers and founders of philosophy namely Aristotle and Plato, we are therefore embarking on an intellectual task to unearth the grounded reasons for the agitation for the creation of Anioma State as a constituent component of the South East Region of Nigeria.
In the ongoing debate about state creation in Nigeria, the call for Anioma State stands out as a critical measure to address historical injustices and systemic marginalization. This proposal has garnered significant support, especially in the South-East and South-South regions, where many see it as a step towards ensuring equitable representation and balanced regional development.
However, prominent voices like Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, have expressed skepticism. Agbakoba argues that creating additional states will not solve the region’s problems and instead advocates for a return to regional governments. While his perspective merits consideration, a closer examination reveals that his arguments are based more on sentiment than profound reason.
Agbakoba asserts that creating additional states, including Anioma State, will not guarantee development and will not address issues like hunger, insecurity, poverty, and unemployment. He argues that the South-East’s agitation for more states is primarily driven by a desire for increased federal allocation, which he views as an emotional rather than a pragmatic demand. According to him, even with creating a new state, the fundamental issues plaguing the region will remain unresolved.
While Agbakoba’s concerns about development and governance are valid, his dismissal of state creation as an ineffective solution is overly simplistic. The creation of Anioma State should be seen through the lens of equitable representation and fair resource distribution, which are essential for long-term stability and development. The South-East, with its current five states, is at a numerical disadvantage compared to other regions, which affects its political influence and access to federal resources. Addressing this imbalance is a matter of justice and equity, not merely an emotional plea.
Historically, the Nigerian state creation process has aimed to reduce regional disparities and promote localized governance. From General Yakubu Gowon’s creation of 12 states in 1967 to subsequent expansions under military administrations, the goal has always been to address regional imbalances and foster national unity. However, these efforts have not always been successful in achieving true equity. The South-East, for example, remains underrepresented compared to other geopolitical zones, leading to systemic marginalization.
The proposal for Anioma State seeks to rectify this historical oversight. By creating a state that includes the local government areas of Aniocha North, Aniocha South, Ika North-East, Ika South, Ndokwa East, Ndokwa West, Oshimili North, Oshimili South, and Ukwuani, with Asaba as its capital, the Anioma region would gain a fair share of political power and resources. This is not just about increasing the number of states; it is about ensuring that every region has an equitable stake in the nation’s governance and development.
Agbakoba’s argument that most of the current 36 states are economically unviable and insolvent is another point that needs to be addressed. While it is true that many states struggle with financial sustainability, this should not be used as a blanket reason to oppose the creation of new states. Instead, the focus should be on building institutional capacity and fostering economic development within these states. Anioma, with its substantial oil and gas resources and significant human capital, has the potential to be economically viable and self-sustaining. The creation of Anioma State could serve as a model for how new states can leverage local resources for development.
Moreover, Agbakoba’s suggestion to collapse the 36 states into six to eight regions and return to a regional system of government overlooks the complexities and nuances of Nigeria’s political and social landscape. While regional governments might offer some administrative efficiencies, they also risk exacerbating regional tensions and creating new forms of marginalization. The current structure, despite its flaws, provides a framework for more localized governance and representation. The challenge is not the number of states but the effectiveness of governance and the equitable distribution of resources.
Agbakoba’s concerns about the cost of governance and the economic burden of creating new states are also worth examining. State creation indeed entails additional administrative costs, including new National Assembly members, ministers, and local governments. However, these costs should be weighed against the potential benefits of more equitable representation and regional development. The creation of Anioma State could lead to more efficient governance, better resource allocation, and improved development outcomes, which could offset the initial costs.
The broader issue here is not just about creating more states or returning to regional governments but about addressing the root causes of Nigeria’s developmental challenges. These include issues like corruption, poor governance, and inefficient resource management. Whether through state creation or other reforms, the focus should be on building institutions that promote transparency, accountability, and inclusive development.
In advocating for the creation of Anioma State, it is crucial to emphasize the principles of equity, justice, and national unity. The historical marginalization of the Anioma region and the South-East as a whole cannot be ignored. Addressing these grievances through state creation is a step towards healing old wounds and building a more inclusive and cohesive Nigeria. This is not just an emotional plea but a reasoned argument grounded in the principles of fairness and equity.
Agbakoba’s position, while well-intentioned, fails to acknowledge the deeper historical and structural issues that the creation of Anioma State seeks to address. His call for a return to regional governments may offer some theoretical benefits, but it overlooks the practical realities of Nigeria’s diverse and complex society. The creation of Anioma State is not a panacea, but it is a necessary step towards achieving a more balanced and equitable federation.
The debate over Anioma State is not just about administrative boundaries or federal allocations; it is about recognizing and addressing historical injustices and ensuring that every region has a fair chance to thrive. It is about building a Nigeria where every citizen, regardless of their region, has access to opportunities and resources. This is the profound reason that should guide the discussion, above any sentimental or emotional arguments.
One must also consider the historical context of regional governance in Nigeria. The pre-1967 regional structure was marked by significant regional autonomy, which often led to unequal development and inter-regional tensions. While regional governments allowed for localized decision-making, they also created power imbalances that fueled secessionist movements and civil unrest. The current state structure was designed to mitigate these issues by promoting national unity and equitable development across regions. Abandoning this structure in favor of regional governments would risk reopening old wounds and creating new sources of conflict.
Furthermore, the argument for regionalism ignores the aspirations and identities of the people within these regions. The creation of Anioma State, for instance, is not just an administrative adjustment; it is a recognition of the unique cultural, historical, and economic identity of the Anioma people. State creation can serve as a means of empowering local communities and giving them a greater voice in their governance. It fosters a sense of belonging and representation that is crucial for national cohesion.
In terms of economic viability, Anioma State stands out due to its rich natural resources and strategic location. The region’s oil and gas reserves, agricultural potential, and burgeoning human capital make it well-positioned for economic growth. With proper governance and investment, Anioma State could become an economic powerhouse, contributing significantly to Nigeria’s overall development. The focus should be on harnessing these resources effectively, rather than dismissing the potential of new states based on the failures of existing ones.
Agbakoba’s concerns about the cost of governance are also worth revisiting. While it is true that state creation involves initial costs, these should be viewed as investments in long-term stability and development. Effective governance, transparent resource management, and accountability can mitigate these costs and ensure that new states contribute positively to the nation’s growth. The creation of Anioma State, with its economic potential, could lead to a more balanced distribution of wealth and resources, reducing regional disparities and fostering national unity.
Moreover, the push for Anioma State is not an isolated demand but part of a broader movement for greater federalism and devolution of powers in Nigeria. Advocates for state creation are calling for a more balanced federal structure where states have greater autonomy and control over their resources. This aligns with global trends towards decentralization and localized governance, which have been shown to promote more responsive and effective governance.
It is also important to address the emotional aspect of Agbakoba’s argument. While emotional appeals can sometimes cloud rational decision-making, they are not inherently invalid. The sense of marginalization and exclusion felt by the Anioma people and other underrepresented groups is real and has tangible impacts on their lives. Acknowledging and addressing these sentiments is crucial for building a more inclusive and just society. The creation of Anioma State is a step towards recognizing and rectifying historical injustices, which is essential for fostering a sense of national unity and belonging.
In conclusion, the creation of Anioma State represents a critical opportunity to correct historical imbalances and promote national cohesion. While concerns about economic viability and the cost of governance are valid, they should not overshadow the fundamental need for equity and justice.
By addressing the historical marginalization of the Anioma region, the creation of Anioma State would contribute to a more balanced and united Nigeria. It is a reasoned and justifiable demand, rooted in the principles of fairness and inclusivity, and it deserves serious consideration and support. The time to act is now; the creation of Anioma State is essential for building a fairer and more just Nigeria for all.
*Emmanuel Onwubiko is head of the HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA and was NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF NIGERIA.
A.I
July 15, 2024 @ 14:45 GMT|
Tags: Emmanuel Onwubiko
