One important asset man cherishes and wouldn’t want to mortgage is freedom.

A slave that loses his freedom to his master does so, not necessarily out of his own free will, but out of the helpless situation he finds himself. And so does a nation or group of people that loses its identity to another nation. If you are in doubt, ask the people of Bakassi whose sovereignty was recently ceded to Cameroon if the seizure of their land was borne out of their own free will.

Freedom is a natural phenomenon that man gloats over or exults upon achievement. When Nigeria got its independence from the British colonial masters in October, 1960, it was with great ecstasy and enthusiasm it celebrated its attainment. The same euphoria and exultation is often associated with the creation of State out of the existing one. Despite its inglorious era, the people of Bayelsa State would for ever be grateful to the government of late General Sani Abacha for giving them a separate State out of the old Rivers State.

It is within this context I locate the current agitation for additional States out of the existing 36 that make up the country. With the creation of additional States, it is expected that government would be brought nearer to the people who probably may have lost their voice and identity in a conglomerate of major ethnic groups. Again, Bayelsa State that produces President Goodluck Jonanthan comes to mind here.

But it will be fool-hardy and suicidal to narrow the current agitation for more States down to mere hopey-changey slogan, especially in the face of stormy waters of ethnic and sectarian malice and suspisicion and the failure of the State to convert hope to joy for the teeming masses. Apology to Sam Omatseye.

Experience has shown that since 1967 when General Yakubu Gowon’s government evolved a 12- State structure, it is hard to appreciate the positive effect of state creation on national integration and development. Among the 36 States of the federation today, how many of them are in good financial stead? How many of them have recorded developmental strides that are commensurate with their resources and years of existence? Perhaps, we should check their debt profile to confirm their viability.

It may be difficult to convince proponents and agitators of more States on this. Certainly not when such agitations are borne out of premordial ethnic sentiments. Aleady, there are no fewer than 54 State demands from various ethnic groups in the country; with each of them giving one million and one plausible reasons why their agitations are inevitable.

In the South East alone, about seven state demands have been made to the National Assembly. Even though the political and community leaders in the zone and their state governors are yet to coalesce the various positions, they are unlikely to give up on the issue. Those who murmur against State creation are already receiving the sharp edge of their tongues.

The Second Republic Vice President of Nigeria, Chief Alex Ekwueme recently made it clear that Nigeria stands the risk of national disintegration if it denies the South East additional States. Only the fool would ignore that subtle but impalpable warning that is imbued with emotions that flow from his grey hairs. As a reminder, Boko Haram militancy is an implosion of previous threats issued by certain political leaders in the north in the wake of the Presidential election that threw up President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011.

In all fairness, I submit myself to the wisdom that comes from Ekwueme’s grey hairs. South-East deserves one additional State. It has, for sometime now, been the most marginalized in terms of population and number of States. While other five geographical zones has six States at least, the South East can only count on five States. Whatever is responsible for this is a topic for another day.

But in as much as I would want to subscribe to the creation of one additional state out of the existing five states in the South-East, at least to equate the zone with its contemporaries, I would want to totally disagree with other state demands across the country.

For a nation that is currently tottering on the brink, creation of additional States should only come up after more critical issues like economy, social infrastructure and devolution of power have been diagnosed and treated.

I quite agree with the submission of Jigawa State governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido that state creation is not the solution to Nigeria’s myriad of woes. We should not therefore make it as if it is sine qua non to national integration and prosperity.

Before Nigeria assumed the 12 – States structure under Gowon, the country’s economy was at par with those of Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia and some other countries. Those countries have maintained the same structures and are yet better off than Nigeria today.

A quick retrospect will show that as at 1965 when Nigeria operated under four regions structure, council areas were building roads and water works for the local populace, social infrastructures were at a very high speed, education was at a level par excellence. Today, despite the nation’s growth in size and number of states and local governments, Nigeria has retarded in development.

Virtually all States are on high debt profile, with infrastructural decay defying their existence.

Except for few political elite who profit from Nigeria’s misfortune or who earn their living from government, no Nigerian can boldly say that all is well with the Nigerian project.

What this suggests is that the prospect for economic prosperity, national integration and local autonomy depend not on the creation of more states or local governments, but on the emergence of a purposeful national leadership and proper political restructuring of the federation designed to generate a national image that has more appeal than the existing structure.

Boye Salau