At the just concluded APC zonal convention in Asaba, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, made a remark that has since stirred political conversations across the South-South: “If that is the only demand from South-South on state creation then I will be very proud to support it.”
Though brief, the statement is layered with political meaning, strategic calculation and constitutional realism. A deeper interrogation reveals that it is less a straightforward endorsement and more of a carefully crafted political message.
At the surface, Akpabio’s comment appears supportive of the agitation for state creation; particularly the long-standing demand for Anioma State. However, the endorsement is clearly conditional. By inserting the phrase “if that is the only demand,” he shifts the responsibility back to the South-South region.
In essence, he is not rejecting the proposal, but neither is he fully committing to it. Rather, he is asking a fundamental question: can the region speak with one voice?
This is significant because the South-South has historically been a region of multiple agitations. From resource control to fiscal federalism, derivation increases, environmental justice and infrastructural demands; the region has often presented a broad spectrum of requests to the federal government. By narrowing support to a single demand, Akpabio is subtly advocating for political coordination and strategic prioritization. The implication is clear, unity strengthens bargaining power, while fragmentation weakens it.
Beyond regional politics, the statement also reflects a careful balancing act at the national level. As Senate President, Akpabio occupies a position that requires him to manage competing interests across Nigeria’s diverse geopolitical zones. State creation is one of the most sensitive issues in the country’s political history. Any move to create a new state in one region often triggers a cascade of similar demands from others. By conditioning his support, Akpabio avoids opening the floodgates to nationwide agitations that could overwhelm the legislative process.
There is also a subtle element of political deflection in his remark. While he holds one of the most powerful offices in the country, his statement avoids a firm legislative commitment. Instead, it places the burden of consensus squarely on regional leaders. Should the proposal fail to gain traction, it would be easy to argue that the South-South did not meet the prerequisite of unity. In this sense, the comment is politically safe, supportive in tone but non-binding in substance.
Furthermore, Akpabio’s position reflects the constitutional realities of state creation in Nigeria. Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, the process is highly rigorous. It requires the approval of two-thirds of the National Assembly, endorsement by two-thirds of State Houses of Assembly, and a referendum in the affected area. These hurdles make state creation not just a political aspiration but a complex national exercise requiring broad consensus. By calling for a single, unified demand, Akpabio is indirectly acknowledging the difficulty of pushing multiple proposals through such a stringent process.
Within the South-South itself, the statement can also be seen as a subtle power play. It challenges political actors, particularly those championing the Anioma cause, to move beyond symbolic agitation and build real consensus. It raises an important question: is the demand for state creation a deeply coordinated regional priority, or merely a recurring political slogan?
Critically, while the remark demonstrates political tact, it is not without its shortcomings. It can be viewed as evasive, offering no clear roadmap for actualizing the proposed state. It sets a condition that may be difficult to achieve, given the diverse interests within the region. In doing so, it risks reinforcing a pattern in Nigerian politics where major structural issues are acknowledged rhetorically but deferred in practice.
In the final analysis, Akpabio’s statement is less about state creation itself and more about the politics of negotiation. It underscores the importance of unity, prioritization and strategic engagement in advancing regional interests within Nigeria’s federal system. More importantly, it serves as a reminder that in a complex democracy like Nigeria, demands are only as strong as the consensus behind them.
Whether the South-South can rise to this challenge remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the path to state creation will require more than declarations; it will demand cohesion, clarity and sustained political will.
Sir Churchill E. Ajusah (KSJI) Political and Public Affairs Analyst
STATE CREATION AND POLITICAL DIPLOMACY: Reading Akpabio’s Conditional Endorsement of Anioma State
At the just concluded APC zonal convention in Asaba, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, made a remark that has since stirred political conversations across the South-South: “If that is the only demand from South-South on state creation then I will be very proud to support it.”
Though brief, the statement is layered with political meaning, strategic calculation and constitutional realism. A deeper interrogation reveals that it is less a straightforward endorsement and more of a carefully crafted political message.
At the surface, Akpabio’s comment appears supportive of the agitation for state creation; particularly the long-standing demand for Anioma State. However, the endorsement is clearly conditional. By inserting the phrase “if that is the only demand,” he shifts the responsibility back to the South-South region.
In essence, he is not rejecting the proposal, but neither is he fully committing to it. Rather, he is asking a fundamental question: can the region speak with one voice?
This is significant because the South-South has historically been a region of multiple agitations. From resource control to fiscal federalism, derivation increases, environmental justice and infrastructural demands; the region has often presented a broad spectrum of requests to the federal government. By narrowing support to a single demand, Akpabio is subtly advocating for political coordination and strategic prioritization. The implication is clear, unity strengthens bargaining power, while fragmentation weakens it.
Beyond regional politics, the statement also reflects a careful balancing act at the national level. As Senate President, Akpabio occupies a position that requires him to manage competing interests across Nigeria’s diverse geopolitical zones. State creation is one of the most sensitive issues in the country’s political history. Any move to create a new state in one region often triggers a cascade of similar demands from others. By conditioning his support, Akpabio avoids opening the floodgates to nationwide agitations that could overwhelm the legislative process.
There is also a subtle element of political deflection in his remark. While he holds one of the most powerful offices in the country, his statement avoids a firm legislative commitment. Instead, it places the burden of consensus squarely on regional leaders. Should the proposal fail to gain traction, it would be easy to argue that the South-South did not meet the prerequisite of unity. In this sense, the comment is politically safe, supportive in tone but non-binding in substance.
Furthermore, Akpabio’s position reflects the constitutional realities of state creation in Nigeria. Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, the process is highly rigorous. It requires the approval of two-thirds of the National Assembly, endorsement by two-thirds of State Houses of Assembly, and a referendum in the affected area. These hurdles make state creation not just a political aspiration but a complex national exercise requiring broad consensus. By calling for a single, unified demand, Akpabio is indirectly acknowledging the difficulty of pushing multiple proposals through such a stringent process.
Within the South-South itself, the statement can also be seen as a subtle power play. It challenges political actors, particularly those championing the Anioma cause, to move beyond symbolic agitation and build real consensus. It raises an important question: is the demand for state creation a deeply coordinated regional priority, or merely a recurring political slogan?
Critically, while the remark demonstrates political tact, it is not without its shortcomings. It can be viewed as evasive, offering no clear roadmap for actualizing the proposed state. It sets a condition that may be difficult to achieve, given the diverse interests within the region. In doing so, it risks reinforcing a pattern in Nigerian politics where major structural issues are acknowledged rhetorically but deferred in practice.
In the final analysis, Akpabio’s statement is less about state creation itself and more about the politics of negotiation. It underscores the importance of unity, prioritization and strategic engagement in advancing regional interests within Nigeria’s federal system. More importantly, it serves as a reminder that in a complex democracy like Nigeria, demands are only as strong as the consensus behind them.
Whether the South-South can rise to this challenge remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the path to state creation will require more than declarations; it will demand cohesion, clarity and sustained political will.
Sir Churchill E. Ajusah (KSJI)
Political and Public Affairs Analyst