The Joint Committee of the National Assembly on the Review of the 1999 Constitution has approved the creation of an additional state in the South-east geopolitical zone, a move aimed at addressing long-standing agitation over the region’s perceived marginalisation in Nigeria’s political structure.
The decision, which, if ratified, will increase the number of states in the South-east from five to six, was reached during the committee’s two-day retreat held in Lagos from 24 to 25 October.
The retreat was convened to consider wide-ranging proposals for constitutional amendments, including 55 separate requests for new states across the federation.
The South-east is currently the only geopolitical zone in Nigeria with five states, compared to seven in the North-west zone and six in the remaining four zones.
This disparity has, over the years, fuelled demands for a new state to ensure equitable representation in federal appointments, resource distribution, and legislative representation.
The five states in the South-east are Anambra, Imo, Ebonyi, Abia, and Enugu.
During the retreat, the committee, chaired by Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin and co-chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, deliberated extensively on the proposal.
Lawmakers from both chambers reportedly reached a consensus that the South-east’s request met the principles of equity, justice, and fairness, which have guided the current review process.
Mr Kalu, who has been a vocal advocate for correcting the regional imbalance, reaffirmed that the agitation for an additional state in the South-east was not a political demand but a constitutional necessity to promote inclusiveness and unity.
After prolonged debate, Senator Abdul Ningi (PDP, Bauchi Central) moved a motion for the creation of the new state, which was seconded by Ibrahim Isiaka (APC, Ogun State).
The motion received unanimous approval from members of the joint committee, signalling rare bipartisan consensus on what has long been a politically sensitive issue.
Lawmakers who contributed to the debate reportedly spoke in support of the motion, stressing that addressing structural imbalance would strengthen national cohesion and reduce feelings of marginalisation among federating units.
