Pushing for Equity: Why the South-East Needs New States to Resolve Regional Historical Imbalance Carefully [OPINION]

  

The demand for an additional state in Nigeria’s South-East region is once again taking centre stage in the national conversation, as the region’s leaders and citizens press for equitable political representation at the federal level. With just five states, the South-East has the lowest number of states of any geopolitical zone in the country. This imbalance has long been a source of frustration for the region’s people, especially when measured against zones like the North-West, which boasts seven states, or even the South-South and South-West, both of which have six.

At the heart of the South-East’s agitation is a desire to correct what many see as a long-standing structural injustice. The logic is straightforward: with each state granted three seats in the Senate, additional states would mean increased representation. From the current 15 senators across five states, the region could see its voice rise to 18 or even 21 if one or two new states are created. The House of Representatives and federal ministerial slots would similarly expand, giving the South-East more leverage in national decision-making.

However, the road to achieving this goal is far from smooth. While the arithmetic of representation makes a compelling case, deeper questions linger about the long-term political, cultural, and economic costs of further dividing Nigeria’s smallest geopolitical zone.

State creation in Nigeria has historically served two purposes. It was first used to correct regional imbalances born out of military-era boundary decisions. Later, it evolved into a tool for appeasing ethnic minorities and local groups who felt marginalized within larger state structures. This second motivation, though understandable, often leads to a proliferation of demands from communities who view statehood as the only viable path to equity and self-determination.

Communities across the South-East are already pushing for recognition. In Abia State, the Asa, Ndoki, and Ngwa peoples have revived the campaign for an Aba State, citing historical neglect and underrepresentation. Their case is just one among many, highlighting the risk that demands for new states could become entangled with internal grievances, turning what should be a regional effort into a fragmented scramble.

Without careful coordination and a unified voice, the South-East may find its political influence diluted, not strengthened. The more the region fractures into competing factions, the harder it becomes to secure national support for a shared vision. This concern is particularly pressing given the relatively small landmass of the South-East.

Covering just about 29,525 square kilometres, the South-East accounts for only 3 percent of Nigeria’s total land area. When compared to the vast North-East, which spans over 279,000 square kilometres, the contrast is stark. Even the largest state in the South-East, Enugu, is smaller than many northern states by tens of thousands of square kilometres.

Why does this matter? Because Nigeria’s federal revenue formula takes landmass into account. Of the total revenue allocated to states, 10 percent is distributed based on land area. Add to this the fact that 40 percent is shared based on population and another 10 percent on internally generated revenue, and the economic feasibility of new, smaller South-East states becomes murky.

The South-East must therefore tread carefully. The quest for equity should not undermine the region’s economic foundation or fracture its cultural cohesion. Creating new states without a robust economic plan risks generating administrative burdens that outweigh the intended benefits.

There is also the risk of creating new states that simply replicate the same patterns of exclusion and inequality they were meant to fix. Experience from other regions shows that power struggles within newly created states often mirror those of their parent states. Marginalized communities quickly find themselves in familiar territory, and calls for even more states begin again.

Rather than pursue state creation as a quick fix, South-East leaders and communities must engage in broad, inclusive dialogue. The push for a new state must reflect strategic thinking, not just emotion or local ambition. Decisions must be rooted in regional interest, economic logic, and the need for political cohesion.

The demand for an additional state in the South-East is legitimate and long overdue. But the strategy for achieving it must be guided by unity, not rivalry, and by vision, not expediency. Without that, the region risks gaining more states on paper while losing the power of a unified voice in the process.

OJO MADUEKWE