The concept of the “state” as an organized political community governed by a constitution or set of rules is not new. Ancient philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and later, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each explored the origins, purpose, and structure of the state. For Plato, the state was a moral organism—an entity designed to promote justice and virtue. Aristotle considered the state a natural institution created to achieve the good life. Meanwhile, modern political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes viewed the state as a necessary mechanism to escape the anarchic “state of nature,” while Locke emphasized the social contract as a foundation for governance.
At its core, the state exists to provide security, justice, and prosperity through an agreed set of laws—what we now call a constitution.
In the context of a nation-state like Nigeria, the constitution is the supreme legal framework—the “bible” that governs every aspect of political, economic, and social life. It defines the powers of government, delineates responsibilities, guarantees rights, and sets the tone for governance and national identity.
However, in Nigeria’s case, a broad consensus exists among well-meaning citizens and stakeholders that the 1999 Constitution (as amended)—a military-drafted document imposed on a democratic people—is fundamentally flawed, lacking in legitimacy, inclusiveness, and practical relevance in addressing Nigeria’s complex sociopolitical realities.
Despite over two decades of democratic governance since 1999, efforts at constitutional amendment have been largely half-hearted, more performative than transformative. These amendments have often been championed by political elites who are the greatest beneficiaries of the very dysfunction the constitution perpetuates. For these individuals, genuine constitutional reform represents a threat to the status quo that grants them unaccountable power, control over public wealth, and the ability to manipulate weak institutions.
Therefore, constitutional amendment processes have been largely cosmetic—tinkering at the edges rather than addressing structural problems at the heart of Nigeria’s nationhood. Most of that efforts have been an attempt to create jobs for the boys, sign out vouchers and create some semblance of activities for many law makers, hence at the end of each exercise they leave bulk of the work for succeeding parliaments.
One of the long-standing issues at the heart of Nigeria’s nation-building challenge is state creation. From independence in 1960 with three regions to today’s 36-state structure, the clamor for new states has always been about political inclusion, economic development, administrative convenience, and identity recognition. While state creation has helped reduce ethnic domination and brought government closer to the people in some cases, it has also entrenched rent-seeking behavior and bloated the bureaucracy without necessarily improving governance or development outcomes. Like most efforts in Nigeria, this, too, is not really driven by developmental desires.
Nonetheless, the call for new states remains potent—particularly in regions like the South East, which currently has the fewest number of states (five) among Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. The Aba State Movement is one such agitation, rooted in the desire to correct a structural imbalance that puts the South East at a political and economic disadvantage relative to other regions.
The Aba State movement is one of the oldest state-creation movements in Nigeria. This effort has largely become unsuccessful because the indigenous people of Aba State lack political reach, sagacity, and contacts to push their case. They are also victims of an internal conspiracy within Ala-Igbo because the idea is to constantly push the argument that Aba is no-mans-land.
Aba, a historical commercial hub and a city of deep cultural and economic relevance, is well-positioned to become the nucleus of a new state. The demand for Aba State is not only about balancing the geopolitical equation but also about harnessing the region’s human and material resources for more focused development.
The economic rationale for state creation, however, must not be lost in the politics of representation.
Many of Nigeria’s current 36 states are not economically viable—most depend almost entirely on federal allocations for survival. This exposes the fragility of Nigeria’s federal structure, where states are mere administrative extensions of the center rather than autonomous units capable of generating and managing their own revenues. The clamor for Aba State, therefore, should be located within a broader debate about restructuring Nigeria into a truly federal system, where the federating units are given constitutional authority to control their resources, develop at their own pace, and compete on the basis of merit and innovation.
Creating Aba State—while desirable from a political equity standpoint—will not in itself solve Nigeria’s fundamental governance problems unless it is part of a deeper, more holistic constitutional amendment that redefines the terms of our union. What Nigeria needs is not just more states, but a restructured federation where power is devolved, resource control is prioritized, and governance is localized to reflect the diverse aspirations of its people.
Ultimately, the most important constitutional amendment Nigeria needs today is one that fundamentally restructures the country into a functional, inclusive, and efficient nation-state. This is the expectation of all patriotic Nigerians, that a President Tinubu led administration, himself being a proponent of true federalism from time immemorial, will use this golden opportunity to reset Nigeria for good. Thus making him the father of ‘Modern Nigeria’.
A Restructured Nigeria will ensure that every component—be it state, region, or ethnic group—has a stake and a sense of belonging. It is only within such a context that new states like Aba can thrive and contribute meaningfully to national development rather than become yet another burden on a failing system. The dream of a new Nigeria will remain elusive unless we confront the foundational defects of our constitution and political structure with honesty, courage, and a sincere commitment to justice and equity.