7.5 Creation of States and Local Governments .1. Transformation from Province to region
7.5.5. Implications of State Creation Exercise
The creation of states and regions in Nigeria have been of positive and negative effects on Nigeria’s social, economic, and political systems. Past Nigerian governments have created states and local governments in the country to satisfy the yearnings of ethnic minorities to give them some degree of jurisdictional power and a sense of belonging (Peter, 2014: 200).
Minorities have always feared being dominated, and that is why measures like federal character and state creation have given them some control over the nation's wealth and some degree of autonomy and self-determination (Ukase, 2014: 206). This may not completely be the case because of allegations of marginalisation by some groups which have been perpetuated. States were created from the Northern region to carve out autonomy for the ethnic minorities in the region. Surprisingly, the age-long complaint of domination of Middle Belt elites by Northern elites is still there. A contemporary example of this is the continuous attacks of communities in Benue and Plateau states by Fulani Herdsmen. These attacks are seen as a tool by Northern Hausa and Fulani to suppress the Northern minority groups.
Nigerian federalism has decimated ethnic and regional loyalty through state creation and reduced sectarianism. To win an election in Nigeria, there is the need to have votes spread
165
across a specified number of states; a development that has reduced sectarianism (Hill, 2012:
45-46). This worked during the civil war; because of state creation, the minority groups in the Eastern region reduced their support for the Igbos (Odey, 2014: 340). In addition, the creation of more states has domiciled ethnic conflicts in the states rather than holding the country to ransom (Suberu, 2010: 463). Consequently, it has weakened the prospect of secession in Nigeria because of the fragmentation of hitherto cohesive ethnic groups. The constitutional mandate of one-quarter of votes in two-thirds states to become a president has also made more states beneficial. This mirrors the centripetal power sharing model. A candidate would require votes from beyond his/her ethnic group to become President. This produces- a national leader and many groups across the country will have the feeling that they voted the leader into a position of authority. The implication of this is also elites’
cooperation. Elites from across the five elite groups cooperate during elections to ensure that they secure votes from different sections of the country.
On the other side of the coin, state creation has not achieved its purpose in Nigeria, but satisfying the interest of some elites, and this is substantiated by the poor infrastructural facilities and poverty in those states as well as corruption among political office holders (Vande, 2012: 46). The author further opines that it has not fulfilled bringing the government closer to the people and national development (Vande, 2012: 33). These states have not been financially buoyant; hence, giving economic succour to its people becomes almost a mirage (Ukase, 2014: 206). This weak financial viability explains why they cannot put the necessary infrastructure meant for the good of their territories in place. It has made the component units very weak in comparison to the government at the centre. That is why the Nigerian federal system tilts more towards unitary in practice.
Political elites, especially from the majority bloc, perceive state creation as an avenue to have access to more federal revenues rather than promoting minority autonomy and security (Odey, 2014: 346). Even elites within the minority fold are the same. Unfortunately, the elites among the minorities have used state creation as an avenue to have selfish political and economic gains (Ukase, 2014: 206). It has not solved the problems of the ethnic minorities, but it has further been a setback to realising true federalism (Agboola, 2016: 8). It is also the same story for local government creation, as it remains an elites’ affair as it is meant to satisfy their desire for power and make them more relevant (Agboola, 2016: 8). Creating states to
166
serve the parochial interest of some groups has further polarised the country rather than integrate it (Eze, Elimian, and Chinwuba, 2015: 115). This is because they have seen states as money-making avenues because of access to the central government. They prefer to run states that generate less, take more from the centre, and satisfy the selfish desires of the political elites. Having oil as the main source of revenue and making less emphasis on states relying mainly on IGR contribute to creating more states in Nigeria (Kraxberger, 2005: 17- 18). Political elites believe that they can go cap in hand every month to collect federal allocation, hence, they see the administering of states not as a responsibility but as money- making enterprises and not revenue generation entities. This has been exacerbated by the increase in the cost of running the states. PINWP 1 explained below.
It has increased the cost of governance because if in the First Republic, we had just one set of ministers for the entire Northern region, regional ministers. In this same Northern region, you now have 19 states, you now have commissioners in every state, about 15 or 20, so that is why the bulk of the resources goes towards maintaining a few because if you look at the budget both of the Federal Government and the State Governments in Nigeria, recurrent expenditure is more than the capital (PINWP 1, January 2019).
PIR 3 shared a similar opinion on this. The root cause of this attitude, according to Ikpe (2009:
684), is that in Nigeria, the interests of the elites, most times, determine state policies. A good example is the creation of new states and local governments. The fund that would have been used on capital projects is being used to remunerate political appointees and civil servants.
Although there are very few instances where capital expenditure is more than recurrent but if political offices have reduced, it would have been a far better proportion in favour of capital expenditure. This would have had positive chronological effects on infrastructures, development, and reduction of poverty. A Central Bank of Nigeria 2019 Public Finance Statistics13, which covered the year 2009 to 2019, indicated that recurrent expenditure of states was 60.7% while capital expenditure was 39.3%. This excludes extra budgetary expenditure.
Fiscal strength in a federal state is an indication of political capacity in intergovernmental relations. Creating states have also arrogated more powers to the federal compared to the states. The states have become so small that they have become financially feeble while the
13 https://www.cbn.gov.ng/documents/Statbulletin.asp
167
federal government has more resources. PINWP 1 submitted that ‘now in 1966 after the coup when Gowon came to power, they created the states and decimated their powers. So gradually, we had states which are smaller in terms of size, in terms of resources, with federal government leaving most of the powers to itself’ (PINWP 1, January 2019). This is not in tangent with Wheare’s postulation of federalism that each level of government has to be coordinate and independent in resources and the attendant functions (Tarlton, 1965: 864).
Aside from the resources angle, the issue of polarising Nigerians also exists. Creating more states have further divided the country and this bolstered statism and less interest in national unity (Odey, 2014: 344). Nigerians who have been staying in a place within the country earlier than others now discriminate against others. This has its root traced to the colonial days. The British promoted ethnic segregation. A good example was what obtained in Northern cities like Kano, Zaria, Jos, Sokoto and Kaduna where indigenes lived in ‘Birni’, which is the city proper, migrants from other Northern cities, lived in ‘Tudun Wada’ while Southerners lived in ‘Sabo Gari’ (Azaigba and Yio, 2014: 390). In contemporary Nigeria, migrants into other states are now called non-indigenes or settlers while those that have been living there before the migrants joined are called indigenes. Kraxberger outlines below that the
status as an indigene is based on biological and ascriptive characteristics, and a person can only be an indigene of one area (often operationalised through local government or state boundaries). Whenever a person is resident outside his or her area of patrilocal ancestry, that person is regarded as a ‘non-indigene,’, even if the person was born in that area or has lived there for an extended period of time (Kraxberger, 2005: 18).
This dichotomy has been a threat to our integration. The author gives more elaborate explanations that:
The definitions are based on contemporary usage in mainstream Nigerian society. An
‘indigene’ is a person tracing patrilocal ancestry through a particular area of Nigeria (i.e., local government, state, traditional political domain). A ‘non-indigene’ is anyone resident outside his or her area of patrilocal ancestry. Non-indigenes are further sub-divided into ‘strangers’ and ‘settlers’. ‘Settlers’ are non-indigenes who have lived in an area for a long period of time (for example, five years or more).
‘Strangers’ are those with shorter periods of residence in a place (Kraxberger, 2005:
18-21).
168
Nigerians should be free everywhere in the country, but this is not so. PINWOL expatiated on these definitions below.
And again, why should we at this point of our national history, almost sixty years of turning independent begin to identify or promote indigenship over citizenship? And almost every state does it. So, these are hindrances. So, if you, for example, migrate to a particular place and stay there for ten years, twenty years, thirty years and still be considered as a settler, then there is a problem about national integration. So, this does not come from the elites. It comes from the people around you. They remind you where you are coming from (PINWOL, December 2018).
Obviously, segregating is not an elites’ affair alone, but the masses also share the blame.
PISWP 1 gave similar assertion but fingered the elites as those that promote such divisions.
He stated thus:
So, where every region or now state lays emphasis on indigenship. An indigenship concept is another problem that is really ravaging the political space now, you are not one of us, you are just a settler. Even though that ethnic group might have settled there for 100 years, they do not regard them as sons of the soil, and that is playing out very very negatively in the North. That is the basis of the problem in Plateau State between those who call themselves indigenes, the Biroms are mostly in Jos, the Fulanis are regarded as settlers, the same problem in Southern Kaduna, especially Zango Kataf area, the Fulanis there are regarded as settlers and is always a problem.
So, our political leaders they have really not done enough to integrate the country.
That is the major problem……they make everybody feel that when the chips are down, to thy tent o ye Israel. So that is one of the major problems we have (PISWP 1, December 2018).
Having identified the dichotomy, it is salient to dissect what plays out because of this dual status especially because of the dynamism that manifests. Hence, in some instances, within a state, an indigene may also belong to the minority while a settler will be a minority. Dividing Nigeria into majority and minority is fluid because some minorities at the national level may be majorities in some states (Azaigba and Yio, 2014: 394). State creation in Nigerian has spread groups across states where they are sometimes referred to as non-indigenes. For instance, Tiv in Plateau, Nasarawa and Taraba States are seen as non-indigenes while they are indigenes and even majorities in Benue State (Eze et al., 2015: 116). The Jukuns are also found in Nasarawa, Benue and Plateau States, but it is only in Taraba that they are referred to as indigenes (Eze et al., 2015: 116). The Jukuns have claimed ownership of Taraba State and asked the Tiv to leave their state. This has led to conflicts between the two groups.
Conspicuously, the creation of states has exposed the ‘differences’ among these states (ethnic
169
groups) and have made the people tagged minorities to be vulnerable to discrimination and attacks.
This dichotomy has also been responsible for the various crises in the country. Indigeneship and settler issues are responsible for conflicts like Uhrobo-Itsekiri, Ijaw-Itsekiri, Azare-Tiv, Hausa-Kataf, and Hausa-Bachama people (Santas, 2014: 241). The good relationship between the Hausa/Fulani and the Tarok, Biron, Anaguta, among others for years was tampered with due to the creation of Jos North and Jos South Local Governments as the two local government areas favour the Hausa and Fulani settlers (Eze et al., 2015: 117).
Sometimes, the settlers are more economically successful than the indigenes, and the host community has sometimes developed resentment and resistance which have translated into conflict as the cases of Zango Kataf-Hausa conflicts of 1984 and 1992, Tiv/Jukun-Fulani conflict of 2001, among others (Salahu, 2014: 429). From a less violent perspective, non- indigenes have been denied privileges.
These states, especially those of the minority ethnic groups, denied non-indigenes some benefits and services, including those provided by the federal government situated in their states (Odey, 2014: 344-345). PIR 2 opined below.
Even till now, for those of us who are Yoruba, you were born in Ibadan, but your parents are from Osun or your parents are from Ogun State, but you were born in Oyo State, and you have lived all your life, 40 years, 50 years of your life in Oyo State, you work in Oyo State, you pay your tax here, you will still be reminded that you are not from Oyo State, that you are a settler. You can build your house, you can do all that, but you may not be able to work in the state public service, and you cannot contest for positions here, you will be reminded of that (PIR 2, December 2018).
This resonates with the views of Kraxberger (2005: 18-21) and Suberu (2010: 466) that discrimination against non-indigenes occurs in employment opportunities, admission to schools, access to social services, access to land, running for political offices and federal projects. In Nigeria, there is discrimination against non-indigenes in states in the civil service and generally in states (Kraxberger, 2005: 10). As a result of being indigenes of a particular place, Nigerians have been denied employment opportunities in other places (Azaigba and Yio, 2014: 394). The competition for scarce resources has also contributed to this. The decline in the country’s economy has led to competition for state resources and indigenes
‘preventing’ settlers from competing the limited resources with them (Kraxberger, 2005: 17- 18). This is echoed by PISEP that:
170
As a Yoruba man, if you were raised in Kano, you probably have not been to Ogun State where your father is from, you did your education, everything in Kano, probably you even got married to a Hausa girl, and you pay your taxes. In fact, you speak fluent Hausa. If not that they ask you to identify where you are from, you pass off as a Hausa person. But when politics now requires you to identify, you say you are from Ogun State. Already your discrimination starts. The solution here is wherever you are born, if you have lived there for a period of time, you say 10, 12, 15 years or more, that makes you part and parcel of that place. You are entitled to every rights and responsibilities of that place. We have this concept of citizenship and indigenship. Is not in the constitution that some are settlers and owners of the land, but the constitution says you are a citizen. Now which is higher in terms of content? Is it the discrepancy between citizenship or that between indigenship and settler? The composition of who a citizen is what we should be looking at now. What entitles you as a citizen? Do not forget, you have fundamental rights that you are supposed to live anywhere you want, move around wherever you want. Of course, within the law (PISEP, January 2019).
These issues of dichotomy cited above are indications that state creation exercises have further divided the country rather than unifying it. Those that are hitherto seen as part of a group are now seen as alien to such group.