Abstract
Frequent agitation for state creation has been recurring
phenomenon in the political history of Nigeria. This has raised a lot of
controversy during national debate. Four research questions guided the study.
They included what steps has been made by the people towards the creation of
Adada state? what are the obstacles inhibiting the creation of Adada State? how
can the creation of Adada state bring about national development in Nigeria?
What are the recommendations for the achievement of the creation of Adada
state?. Four Specific objectives guided the study which includes; to discover
the various steps that has been made by the people towards the creation of
Adada state, to find out the obstacles inhibiting the creation of Adada State,
to forecast if the creation of Adada state will bring about national
development in Nigeria, to find out recommendations that can lead towards the
achievement of the creation of Adada
state. Interview was used as the major source of data collection for this
study, while content analysis was used as the method of data analysis. The
theory of decentralization was used as the theoretical framework for this
study. The findings of the study showed that due process has been followed in
the request for the creation of Adada state and the creation of Adada state
will bring about national development in Nigeria. Notwithstanding, some
recommendations were made.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page………………………………………………………….………………i
Certification ………………………………………………………………………ii
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………..iii
Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………..iv
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………v
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………vi-vii
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
Background to the
Study……………….. ………………………………..1
Statement of the
Problem………………..……….. .8
Objectives of the
study………………………… ………….10
The Significance of
the Study…………………. ….. …………. 11
Scope and Limitation
of the Study………………………..12
Chapter Two: LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH PROCEDURE
2.1History Background of State Creation Exercises in
Nigeria………….13
2.1. 2 Contending Views in Nigeria Federalism: Implications
to National Unity………………………………………….………………17
2.1.3 Empirical Causes of Inequality in Nigeria………………………27
2.1.4 The Implication of Inequality…………………… …………………………30
2.1.5 Gap in Literature…………………………………………………………………..32
2.2 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………….32
2.3
Operationalization of Key Concepts………………………………………33
2.4 Research Procedure………………………………………………………………….34
2.4.1Research Design……………………………………………………………………34
2.4.2 Population of
the study…………………………….……………..……34
2.4.3 Sample Size………………………………………………………………….35
2.4.4 The Main
Instrument of Data collection…………………35
2.4.5 Sampling Technique…..…………………………………………………………..35
2.4.6 Method of Analyses………………..……………………………………………..35
2.5 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………….35
Chapter Three: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE STUDY AREA
3.1 The request for the creation of Adada State……………….38
3.2 Legal Enablement to State Creation………….…………44
3.3 Resolution by the Enugu State House of Assembly Dated2th
June 2008……..……47
3.4 An Annexure to the Memo for Request for the Creation of
Adada State…………..49
Chapter Four: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Presentation and analysis ……………………………………………56
Chapter Five Summary,
Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………65
5. 2 Recommendations ………………………………………………………66
5.3 Conclusion
……………………………………………………………67
Bibliography
Appendix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
The military has been involved in Nigerian politics for
almost three decades, indeed, since the coup d’état of January 1966 that ousted
the civilian administration; the military has played a dominant role in the
affairs of the nation. Except for the four-year civil administration of
Shagari, that is, 1979-1983, Nigeria from 1966 to the present has been
administered entirely by the military although democratic structures were
experimented at the state level between 1992 and 1993.
One of the issues which the military has paid attention to
in Nigeria is the question of creation of states which has continued to be a
topical issue in the country Both the civilian and the military administrations
had been involved in the politics of state creation, and both had employed the
vehicle of state creation for political engineering, although the military more
than any civilian administration had always used the issue of state creation to
stabilize their administrations. The first involvement of the military in
creation of states took place a year after they took over the country.
Since the
civilian rule in 1999 the issue of state creation has also been an issue of
national debate, which has created controversy anomg the elites. This as will
be shown later was dictated by the need to weaken the secession threat of the
Eastern Region. Without doubt, states are important variables in a federation,
and thus a pre-requisite for its existence (Noser : 1975 : 170). Nevertheless,
creation of states by the military in Nigeria has so far not succeeded in
satisfying all interest groups in the country. However, it is important to
stress that the creation of states by the military has been one of the most
important achievements of military administration in Nigeria.
It is against this background that this study examines the
issues and challenges and prospects of states creation in Nigeria and Adada
state in particular. It analyses the important factors which the various
military regimes took into consideration in the creation of states. The chapter
submits that the military in Nigeria has over the years used creation of states
not only to attempt even development but also to stabilize their
administrations.
Demands and agitations for creation of new states in Nigeria
have been a recurrent feature since the London Constitutional Conference of
1957. The fundamental reason for the demand has always been cultural affinity
or pluralism or differences in agreeing on issues of governance, leading to the
marginalization of one sector or people. This has led to the perennial problem
of “minority groups” within administrative units, thinking objectively or
otherwise that they are at a disadvantage. The Willink Commission that was set
up by the British colonial government in 1857 did not make any recommendation
that would break-up the three regions.
Instead, it held the view that the only meaningful way of
allaying the fears of minorities was to encourage democratic government within
the regions. After independence in 1960, only the Mid-West region was created
out of the old Western Region in 1964, leaving the East and North intact. The
Military Regime under Gowon tried to solve the problem of minorities by
breaking up the regions into twelve states in 1967. The euphoria did not last
as demands for more states continued. Minorities within the “1967 new states”
started agitating. This project work examines the nature and structure as well
as causes of this sustained and incessant agitation in the context of the
present demands for the creation of Adada State out of the present Enugu State
of the South East Region.
The topic “State Creation and Political Unity in Nigeria: A
case of the request for creation of Adada State” is at this time really
appealing, and demands in-depth discussion. This is because, for almost half a
century after Nigeria independence, the nation is yet to resolve the problem of
nation building. Political disunity understandably, within this period, has
been on the ascendancy. The centrifugal forces of division, violence, crises
and indeed disunity have continuously played on the North and South in the
North/South struggle for dominance and control of the political forces and of
the common-wealth.
Justification for this study lies in the fact that unity and
peace are the key ingredients of development. Hardly can any society give in
their best when in chaos. The study, is promising in content, it can provide
answer to political disunity and marginalization in Nigeria, it is for this reason that I am moved to
carry out this study.
The history
of political disunity in Nigeria is a chequered one. The British, prior to
independence, forcefully without consultation, and consideration of the
incompatibility status of Northern and Southern Nigeria, amalgamated the North
and South to become a federation. Either borne out of the British imperialistic
or commercial interest, or for reasons of convenience in administration or as
the only way thought out at the time to be able to govern the vast, diverse and
disparate Nigeria society, the 1914 episode of amalgamation and the subsequent
incorporation of the federal system by the Lytteton constitution of 1954
facilitated the further division of the country and its unequal regions making
the Northern Region larger than the remaining parts put together. This ‘adopted
federalism’ which in all intents, runs outside the full consonance of the basic
principles that should underline federal practices, introduced uneven structure
and imbalances that led to the continued centralization and concentration of
power at the centre with the attendant consequences of depriving the federating
units, the needed nationalities; self actualization and determinism. Conceded,
the Lyttetton constitution was an offshoot of the crises generated by the
Macpherson constitution, especially the motion of self government, and the Kano
riots of 1953. These events convinced the colonial government that considerable
regional autonomy must be granted to the regional governments and that only federalism
could hold the Nigerian peoples together.1 Nigerian Federalism became
consolidated at independence. Since then, it has been operating in both
political and fiscal contexts. Historically, Nigeria’s federal system has
oscillated between the excessive regionalism that marked the First Republic
(1960-1966) and the excessive centralization of the military, and relatively,
the post military era. From the initial three region structure at independence
to a four region structure by 1964, to
a twelve states and to the present
thirty six states structure including seven hundred and seventy four
local governments. These creations were ostensibly made to promote political
stability and to establish a convenient administrative system. It was meant to
bring the masses nearer to government. It was made ostensibly to ginger
development and psychologically kick-start the process of self determination of
the federating units. It was ostensibly made to correct the observed structural
and administrative imbalances in the country and minimize future political
friction. It was made to provide a much needed political cohesion and unity. It
was made to ginger political unity and reduce tension in the polity.
But, as Gowon puts it: “The main obstacle to the future
stability of this country is the present structural imbalance in the Nigerian
federalism. Even Decree No. 8 or Confederation or loose association will never
survive if anyone section of the country is in a position to hold others to
ransom”. It therefore means that no matter how novel a system of government is,
once there is an imbalance, the society is bound to fail.
The idea of
state creation which ordinarily would have reduced political disunity within
Nigeria, and amongst the North and the South, unfortunately became a keg of
gun-powder. By this indiscrete division, without adherence to the norms, the
states as created polarized the North and the South. First, the exercise was
decided and implemented-without deep considerations. Some strange bed-fellows
were grouped into the same state and the Boundary Adjustment Committees usually
set up in such cases fail to provide any enduring solution to the problems that
follow. The state creation initiative which is a good reform to-equalize the
society and bring equilibrium rather became a destabilizing force. As was
clearly seen, the failure was seen, as it was the decision to create Nigeria
into 12 states that sparked off the attempted secession of the Eastern Region.
Despite
this, minority agitations and state creation questions had since then been
prevalent in Nigeria. In a nutshell, subsequent state creation exercises aimed
at curbing-political disunity within the polity had been carried out in 1976,
1987, 1991, and 1995.
Dominant interest
group had captured the state and managed its attendant wealth thereby
facilitating the emergence of violent ethnic militias, distrust, disharmony and
crises. The bothering issues of resource control, power sharing, equal rights
and accountability, which are offshoot of a veritable state creation, became
improperly engaged, leading to increasing political disunity, internal crises,
and anarchy of unprecedented dimensions. Out of the 36 states and local
government structure, while the North has 20 “states”, the South has 17 states.
A closer look at the share of the 774 local governments will also show the
North having almost 70% against the South’s 30%. The imbalance is quite
apparent. Genuine considerations that would enable creation viewed as a reformation
policy for balancing, equity and peace are avoided. This is the quagmire of the
Nigerian federalism.