Benedict Okereke

Before I go to the subject of this essay I feel obliged to underline one fact: the preoccupation with, or the debate on the issue of state creation - however necessary it is – must not be allowed to dissipate the energies we require to affront the bigger task of reviewing the 1999 constitution. From the constitution review committee Nigerians expect a priced product: a constitution capable of redeeming Nigeria from the forces of attrition, a constitution that must reposition Nigeria on the road to real development. Nothing less. If we eventually emerge with a constitution that diminishes the differences of religion and ethnicity, a constitution that imbues Nigerians with a sense of unity of purpose and entrepreneur, a constitution that builds patriotism into every Nigerian (a factor that must severely attenuate our disease of primitive acquisition of wealth at others’ expense), chances are that “Vision 20:2020” may not be a tall dream given Nigeria’s abundant human and mineral resources. On the other hand, if we fruitlessly expend this latest opportunity at nation building, we may have a long walk home.

On the subject of bringing the number of states in the Southeast to, at least, six, if the concept of rule of law can be expanded to include walking the line of justice in whatever we set out to do in our daily activities, there ought not be any second thought as to where a sixth state is to be located in the Southeast zone. The antecedent of state creation in the zone ought to be the first resource pool to have recourse to. On that score, a man from the moon does not require a second thought to state that the sixth state, or the state originating from the existing five states in the Southeast, or the ‘equalisation state’, or the state at the centre of the Southeast is a creation carved out from the entire Imo West plus parts of Anambra South senatorial districts. In these areas, the long standing proposal for Njaba state is the yearning of the people. The requirements of population, viability, cohesiveness of the masses in the area and contiguity favours the proposal.

At this juncture, I shall implore the reader that respects the concepts of fairness and rule of law to read on; while those schooled on machiavellianism, those inclined to standing justice on its head, and those normally thrilled with the primrose path in obstructing justice’s course are expected to quit.

There are the compelling reasons to bring the number of states in the Southeast zone to, at least, six. If there are people still not versed in the history of state creation in the Southeast: the zone is derived from the former East Central state that later gave rise to Anambra and Imo states. In a subsequent state creation exercise Anambra was split into Enugu and Anambra states, while Imo was split into Abia and Imo states. In the last state creation exercise in the zone, Ebonyi state was derived from the two states of Abia and Enugu thus leaving the states and their corresponding number of Local Councils as follows: Ebonyi (13), Enugu (17), Abia (18), Anambra (21) and Imo (27).

When the old Imo state was split into Abia and Imo states, the then Okigwe senatorial district in the old Imo state was divided between the two new states. When Ebonyi state was created from Abia and Enugu states, that part of the old Okigwe senatorial district located in the then Abia state was divided between Ebonyi and Abia states. In other words, from the days of the East Central state till date, the two components of the old Okigwe zone now in Ebonyi and Abia states have belonged to three or four states and have had three or four state capitals.

The sociometric realities in the old Okigwe zone depict that for each of the three groups that once made up the zone but are now located in the three states of Imo, Abia and Ebonyi, the cultural, dialectical and socio-political bonds that tie them to the groups existing in the states where they are now located are much more stronger than whatever linked them together in the old Okigwe senatorial district. An example: when the Isuikwuator portion of the old Okigwe zone was merged with Abia state where the old Bende people with whom they have rich cultural and dialectical ties exist, it was for them like a situation of the chicken finally coming home to roost. The situation is the same for the other two portions of the old Okigwe senatorial district located in today’s Imo and Ebonyi states.

The objective of the elaboration above is not to draw any distinction between Igbo groups. But one is often constrained to take the highway as spin-doctors drive the debate on the issue of the sixth state for the Southeast to near frenzy.

The following factors qualify the proposed Njaba state for the sixth state in the Southeast zone: its viability as a state is certain; the area is contiguous; a collection of 13 local government areas or more is asking for the state; nearly all the people in the area share the same cultural, dialectical, and socio-political ties (a fact underscored by the reality that nearly all the catholic parishes in the proposed state - Catholicism is the preponderant Christian religion in the area - are of the Orlu Catholic diocese); it has the population of people to form a state; a referendum any day (as provided by Section 8 of the Nigerian constitution regarding state creation) on the Njaba state proposal in the areas where it is proposed must yield a landslide ‘YES’ vote (politicians in the zone have their individual one vote to cast in the circumstance).

Oil wells dry with time, humanity is enduring. Perhaps it is the diffidence or the absence of industry in some of us that can make such mundane factor as the existence of oil wells in some localities so important for some persons in the issue of state creation in this circumstance. In the case of Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Area, democracy and the rule of law demand that the inhabitants of the area be given their inalienable right to chose either Imo or the proposed Njaba states or any other state they would want to belong through the same referendum. When the East Central state was about to be divided in 1976 into Imo and Anambra states, what if a few persons in the emergent Anambra state had tried to or even succeeded in obstructing the division of the East Central state for it was obvious they knew the emerging Imo state was taking away with it all the oil producing areas in the state? Or what if we had a situation where the then East Central state ‘donated’ some portion of it which it did not consider lucrative to other interest groups to form a state so that it could retain the Imo people agitating for a state then? Think of the mutual distrust and schism that can generate in the state thereafter. Or the Edo man or the man from Cross River state got worried over the creation of Delta or Akwa Ibom states respectively and overtly or covertly exhorted the federal government that creation of any more state or states in Nigeria may lead to balkanisation or destabilisation of Nigeria? Today given the extension of development brought about by the creation of those states, a man like that should be pitying himself for being so myopic and self-centred. Nigeria’s unity is rather greatly sustained by the virtue of state creation. We need to look beyond today and shun the vice of double morality standards in our approach to the issue of the sixth state for the Southeast.

Again, one is not oblivious of the machiavellian position of a few persons that the sixth state being a collective struggle by Ndigbo has to be located at the centre of the Southeast by extracting local government areas from the existing five states in the zone. This deceptive argument falls flat on its face when it is weighed against the history of state creation in the Southeast zone. The argument was developed in the not too distant past by a few persons in high places coveting the proposed sixth state in their area for a reward. The argument is not rooted in the wishes of the masses in the areas these persons have in mind (including the old Okigwe area) for the purpose of a state; people out there have been displaced from their jobs or relocated about three to four times owing to the three to four state creation exercises that centred mostly on these areas. They ought to have been weary and wary of the exercise of state creation. The people from the various local government areas in the various states the proponents intend to coerce into the proposal have their distinguishable differences, and above all, they cannot make up the population for a state. From every economic data regarding the area in question, such a state can hardly thrive without federal handouts; and in the presence of other groups agitating for the sixth state with empirical statistics backing the economic viability of the states they are proposing, a situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul must not be encouraged.  

For a digression, whenever the subject of centre of Igboland or centre of the Southeast zone comes up, well meaning Igbos and students of history recall that the area in today’s Imo West and the southern tip of Anambra South senatorial districts (the proposed Njaba state) was the last to collapse to the federal forces thus signalling the end of Nigeria’s civil war. The area was the last refuge to most of Ndigbo displaced by warfare. The defunct Amorka-Uli airport in this area (Anambra South) was the primary source of relief materials and, to some degree, survival for Ndigbo at the heat of the war. Obodo-Ukwu (Imo West) was the last host of Radio Biafra through which armistice was declared. That this area served these purposes is to a large extent an indication of its central location in Igboland as well as an attestation to its people’s cohesiveness. The Igbo is supposed to be his brother’s keeper hence people in this area are not expecting any form of pay-back from any body, but a few persons obviously on ego-trip or fired by greed must not device any excuse to arrogate you-deserve-no-good attribute to the people here.

Again, it smacks of insensitivity and lack of hindsight or outright opportunism to cite the recent demand for an Orashi state as contrived and backed by a single individual as a detraction from the proposed Njaba state. A product of malice borne by one politician against the other should be discernible. However, among the majority of people agitating for Njaba state, the name Orashi can conveniently substitute Njaba. It is not worth the anticipated problems excluding any area or areas within the Imo West senatorial zone from any of the two proposals, more so, when such exclusion is seen as divisive and can only be effected by undemocratic methods. By and large, the senate president, David Mark’s recent statement that the people’s yearnings, “NOT PRESCRIPTIONS” (emphasis mine) must determine the issue of state creation is reassuring to all people of good will.

The demand for Njaba state had all along scored firsts: it is the oldest in the Southeast, dating back to the early 1970’s; it was the first and only proposal for state to get a nod from the Imo state House of Assembly, it was the first proposal for state to be presented to the National Political Reforms Conference (NPRC), it was first among the three demands presented by Ohaneze Ndigbo to that Conference for creation as a state, and when the NPRC’s proposals were aborted, the leaders of the movement for Njaba state were the first to regroup and presented their demand before president Umaru Yar’Adua during his first official visit to Imo state in February 2008; the group was the first to present its demand before the National Assembly mid 2008; as a state to be created through democratic means, the proposed Njaba state shall be the first in Nigeria where development infrastructures are planned to be decentralised to all nooks and corners of the state, in other words, no area is likely to scheme to have the state capital for the purpose of propagating the despicable state-capital-shall-have-it-all phenomenon.

We need not invent confusion in the midst of clarity. On any scale balanced on the precept of justice, the tilt overwhelmingly favours the proposed Njaba state for the sixth state in the Southeast zone. And finally, if for any reasons you from the Southeast have ‘forgotten’ the antecedent of states’ creation in this area, it is believed the rest of Nigeria shall remind you of it when it decides to give us the sixth state we justly crave.

Okereke Benedict

obenox@hotmail.com

Robot  # 1 | 17.01.2009 10:32

On the subject of bringing the number of states in the Southeast to, at least, six, if the concept of rule of law can be expanded to include walking the line of justice in whatever we set out to do in our daily activities, there ought not be any second thought as to where a sixth state is to be located in the Southeast zone. The antecedent of state creation in the zone ought to be the first resource pool to have recourse to....Read the full article.

G-force  # 2 | 17.01.2009 13:14

Benjamin, that's a nice article you've got there. Just my personal bias. Please don't take the following comment personal: Well, if we talk strictly of cutting it out of the South East, Adada State was initially the choice, but I don't know to what extent the proponents are currently ready for it. Next comes Njaba State. I've observed the proponents of Njaba State seem more serious at least in terms of publicity, than Adada State, maybe cos Adada State wishers think they've already been pre-approved. My only worry with Njaba state is not being sure how willing the guys from Anambra are to let go of any part of their State However, if we consider things from an inclusive perspective, I'll go for Anioma State, then any of Adada and Njaba.

G-force  # 3 | 17.01.2009 13:17

Oh by the way, the constitutional review has just started through the meeting of the two House of Assembly members and their Senate counterparts. Though the meeting ended up not really taking off as expected, but there is hope for as much as three states for the South East, so I guess there is room for everybody.