After he lost his bicycle, the village elder was so distraught that he asked their Congregation pastor to preach about the Ten Commandments and dwell especially on the 8th commandment which says “Do not steal ” so that the message might touch the thief.

On Sunday during the church service, the Pastor taught about the 10 Commandments, when he mentioned the 7th commandment which says “Do not commit adultery” the village elder then remembered where he had left his bicycle.

Often, I say I believe the things I write about, are as important for our nation as they are for other countries, but when it appears to me, Nigerians especially those in authority do not react to these issues as people in other lands do, I repeat them in new essays to remind old readers and recruit new ones to participate in the continuing dialogue.

Sadly, this is Nigeria where nothing works and no one cares, when it works, it is because someone’s interest is about to be served and not the people’s interest. We talk about our institutions despairingly. Our leaders do not watch network news except when their faces are there on the occasion of their sons/daughters’ weddings or such. They do not need the newspapers anymore because it is full of their lies, or paid adverts exchanging banters together.

Government bashing remains a national past time and every drinking joint, and suya spot has a sitting parliament with an expert on every and any issue but we forget that no matter the input, if the politicians and actors in our national scene have questionable lives both on a personal and domestic level, nothing will change, the best government policy cannot change the individual. It is because the policies are formulated on a bad foundation and by people with warped thinking.

Again, Nigeria’s educational system, which has long been a subject of passionate debate, characterized by recurrent policy flip-flops and inconsistencies that have left lasting impacts on both its children and the nation’s future is on the front burner. The recent announcement by the Federal Government—scrapping all Junior Secondary Schools (JSS) and Senior Secondary Schools (SSS) in favor of a compulsory 12 years of uninterrupted basic education, and replacing the 6-3-3-4 system with a 12-4 structure—reflects an ambitious effort to align the country with global best practices. Yet, as laudable as these reforms may appear on paper, they also underscore the enduring challenges and systemic inconsistencies that have beleaguered Nigeria’s educational landscape for decades.

Historically, Nigeria’s education system has undergone multiple revisions. The 6-3-3-4 system once heralded as a structured pathway from primary education to tertiary institutions, was implemented with the intent of standardizing learning and promoting a well-rounded academic and vocational foundation. However, over time, the system revealed critical weaknesses. It inadvertently created segmentation and frequent interruptions in the academic journey, contributing to high dropout rates. Financial constraints, regional disparities, and systemic barriers—factors deeply entrenched in the fabric of the Nigerian education sector—compounded these problems, leaving many students unable to complete their education. Each policy revision, often introduced with great fanfare, has tended to offer a temporary fix without addressing the underlying structural issues.

The recent reform, as outlined by Minister of Education Dr. Tunji Alausa during the extraordinary National Council on Education (NCE) meeting in Abuja, represents a radical departure from previous models. By subsuming what was traditionally known as secondary education into a unified, uninterrupted 12-year basic education program, the government intends to offer Nigerian children a seamless learning experience up to the age of 16. In addition, the proposal to adopt 16 years as the minimum entry age for tertiary institutions is aimed at ensuring that students enter higher education with a more mature and robust academic foundation. Proponents argue that these changes are not only aligned with global educational trends but also positioned to reduce dropout rates by mitigating financial and systemic impediments. In theory, a consistent and longer basic education would allow for a more focused and uninterrupted development of cognitive and social skills, potentially leading to a more competent workforce in the long term.

Yet, while the vision behind these reforms is commendable, the execution remains fraught with challenges. The history of flip-flopping educational policies in Nigeria has bred a sense of skepticism among educators, parents, and even policymakers. The abrupt discontinuation of established school structures such as JSS and SSS could lead to transitional disarray if not managed with careful planning and adequate resource allocation. Teachers, who are the backbone of any educational system, must be retrained and equipped with new curricula and pedagogical strategies that fit the 12-4 model. Without comprehensive teacher training programs and curriculum reform initiatives, the shift may exacerbate existing issues, further disenfranchising students who are already vulnerable.

The ripple effects of these inconsistencies on children are profound. Frequent changes in the structure of education often lead to curriculum discontinuity, leaving students confused about expectations and learning outcomes. Moreover, families that have already invested in the old system might find themselves facing financial uncertainties and logistical challenges during the transition. Children in rural or economically disadvantaged areas, who already contend with limited access to quality education, might be disproportionately affected. In the long run, these challenges could undermine the quality of human capital that Nigeria needs to drive its economic growth and social development.

Beyond the immediate impact on students, these policy inconsistencies have long-term implications for Nigeria’s socio-economic fabric. A robust educational system is foundational to national progress. When students are caught in a cycle of discontinuity and systemic barriers, the country risks cultivating a generation that is less prepared to meet the demands of an evolving global economy. The potential talent drain, coupled with the frustration and demotivation of capable youth, could impede innovation and competitiveness on both the national and international stages.

Now for me, these are the issues, I doubt if comprehensive stakeholder engagement took place, policy reform must be inclusive. Engaging teachers, school administrators, parents, students, and community leaders in the planning and implementation process will help ensure that reforms are responsive to on-the-ground realities.

Where are the teachers, do we currently have a robust teacher training and curriculum development programme? Are we ready for Investment in curriculum development that focuses on integrating technology, critical thinking, and vocational skills, ensuring that students are prepared for the demands of the 21st century?

Educational reforms must be matched by commensurate financial investments. We know the reality on the ground regarding our education budgets.

In conclusion, Nigeria’s journey toward a reformed educational system is both a bold opportunity and a formidable challenge. The recent announcement to replace the traditional 6-3-3-4 model with a 12-4 system, coupled with the adoption of a 16-year minimum entry age for tertiary education, is a reflection of an earnest attempt to align with global educational standards and reduce dropout rates. However, the historical inconsistencies and frequent flip-flops in policy have left deep-seated scars that threaten to undermine these well-intentioned reforms.

For Nigeria to truly harness the potential of its youth and create a sustainable, forward-thinking society, policymakers must approach reform with a holistic, inclusive, and well-resourced strategy. Only by addressing the systemic issues that have long plagued the educational landscape can Nigeria hope to transform its human capital into the long-term driver of national prosperity and innovation. We must find who stole our bicycle or remember where we left it—May Nigeria win!

Prince Charles Dickson PhD

In 1954, Sir John Verity lost his job because he won an argument. It was in his ninth year in office as chief justice of colonial Nigeria. Sir John arrived in Nigeria in October 1945 from British Guyana, where he had served in a similar position since 1941. At the time, Nigeria was still a unitary system under colonial rule. 

Two years before Sir John arrived in Nigeria, the Native Courts (Colony) Ordinance of 1943 had created a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Taslim Elias, the distinguished academic who was destined to play a significant role in the administration of law and courts in post-colonial Africa, described the structure of the colonial court system that Sir John met on arrival in Nigeria as comprising “a Supreme Court, which is the highest court for the territory. It consists of two parts, a Divisional Court and a Full Court (as in the West African colonies), or a High Court and a Court of Appeal (as in several other colonies such as Jamaica, Singapore and Kenya), or simply a High Court (as in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia).”

That system had existed with modest adaptation since the Amalgamation in 1914. In his Amalgamation Report in 1919, Frederick Lugard, Nigeria’s founding governor-general, pointed out that it was made up of a chief justice and puisne judges who “sat at certain places and visited on Assize the ‘District Courts.’”

Six years into Sir John’s tenure as chief justice, in 1951, the colonial government turned the country into a federation. Two years later, one of the issues to engage the constitutional conference that began in London was the implication of this new structure for judicial administration. As the conference began, the delegates – mostly politicians who preferred in the language of the day to be called “nationalists” – advocated the decentralisation of the judiciary. Sir John opposed the proposal, venturing with what proved to be accurate foresight, that such a step “might lead to judges and magistrates becoming tools in the hands of politicians” and “might eventually lead to the control of the judiciary by the executive.” 

The conference relocated to Lagos in 1954 where the politicians overwhelmingly approved the proposal to regionalise the judiciary. Having lost the fight over the future of the judiciary that he led, Sir John opted to take early retirement from the office of chief justice. He was the penultimate English man in the role. 

In the reorganisation of the court system that followed upon the conclusion of the constitutional conference, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was created in 1954. The regions had high courts from which appeals could go to the FSC. The highest court for the country remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. 

By 1963, the nationalists fighting for independence one decade earlier had metamorphosed into political incumbents seeking control of the courts (like their colonial predecessors). The privy council had effectively ruled in favour of the opposition Action Group (AG) on whether the regional governor could remove renegade premier, Ladoke Akintola, without a formal vote in the regional parliament. 

Confronted with the loss of a prized ally helpfully decimating the ranks of a loathed political foe (like a certain minister is doing today for the ruling party), the then-ruling federal coalition led by the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), legislated the privy council out of existence, abolished the Judicial Service Commission, and made the Supreme Court Nigeria’s apex court. Sir John’s prophecy had become a reality. 

Although the 1963 Constitution enabled the court to sit “in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint”, the supreme court has functioned from its seat, first in Lagos when it was the capital city for the first three decades after independence and, thereafter, from Abuja, the current federal capital. The fortunes of the court have waxed and waned in symmetry with the political economy of Nigeria. Unlike other courts in the country, there are no divisions of the supreme court. 

For much of its life, the supreme court was an all-comers affair for appeals “on questions of law.” As the claims on the court’s judicial bandwidth rose and the political economy of the country grew more complex, it was predictable that its docket would increase. The sensible thing to do was to reform the law governing access to the Supreme Court – as well as its doctrine – to keep pace with the increasing demand for the rarefied attention of the court and preserve its authority. This was not done.

Instead, since the onset of the current elective dispensation in 1999, the supreme court became preoccupied with electoral and political disputes. Among the many consequences from this, two are notable. First, the preoccupation of the court (and of the judiciary below it) with political and electoral disputes increasingly tasks its credibility. Second, the resulting prioritization accorded by the court to political cases has created an intolerable backlog to which there is no sensible solution under the current system of judicial administration. The result is that appeals not involving senior politicians or election results vegetate interminably in the bowels of the supreme court with no reasonable chance of getting heard. 

It is right that this situation should engage the attention of senior lawyers and senior politicians. Manu Soro, the member of the house of representatives representing Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi state, has decided to bell the proverbial cat. On World Anti-Corruption Day, 9 December 2024, his bill for supreme court reform was gazetted. 

The bill proposes – among other things – to authorise the establishment of five regional divisions of the supreme court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters. The bill comes complete with a political geography of the proposed divisions: Umuahia (Abia state) to serve the south-east; Bauchi (Bauchi state) for the north-east; Uyo (Akwa Ibom) for the south-south; Lagos (Lagos state) for the south-west; and Kano (Kano state) for the north-west. The declared objective of the bill is “to enhance access to the highest justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court”.

Commendable as it is for the initiative, this bill is plainly misguided for many reasons. First, it misconceives and mischaracterises the mission of the supreme court. Second, it has no diagnosis for the problems that ail the supreme court and, to the extent that it evinces any, offers no reasonable solution to them. Third, it offers a misplaced geographical and genealogical solution for a crisis of jurisdictional sclerosis and unimaginative judicial administration that it is unable to see.

The most charitable anyone can be about this bill is that it is hare-brained. The solution that it offers is guaranteed to make the situation worse, not better. It will also disestablish the court because a “supreme court” that sits in judicial divisions will be neither apex nor supreme. 

The crisis of appellate throughput and its consequences which presently afflicts Nigeria’s supreme court is too serious to be banished to post-codes defined by geographies of genealogy. To address it, the supply of appeals to the court will need to be constrained significantly. The administration of the court needs to be overhauled and professionalised, and case management needs attention too. The one thing the court cannot afford is precisely what this bill seeks – to cannibalise it into a collection of judicial Bantustans.

A lawyer & a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu 

Last week, Nigeria successfully recorded 3 events that greatly excited many citizens. They were obviously events that many people must have wished could continue without stop. One of them was the conviction and imprisonment of Ignatius Uduk, a professor at the University of Uyo (UNIUYO)who was found guilty of electoral malpractices.  Uduk, who served as a returning officer during the 2019 general elections in Essien Udim State Constituency, was specifically indicted for announcing and publishing false election results. This makes it 2, the number of professors that have so far been convicted for electoral fraud. The first conviction which took place in 2021, was that of one Peter Ogban, a professor of soil science, at the same UNIUYO, and a returning officer in the 2019 general elections in Akwa Ibom North-West District. He was jailed for tampering with election results.

The apparent implication of the development is that it is not every professor that has integrity. The unending examination malpractices in different universities in the country ought to have been a reminder to the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC to be circumspect in appointing just any professor and other academics to the sensitive assignments of conducting different segments of elections. It is in fact worse that many of those who get appointed to do the job patently lobbied for it. In other words, they had ulterior motives in seeking to be part of the sensitive assignments – the appointment of such ‘hustlers’ is an incurable risk. It is therefore hoped that INEC will depart from its fixation that academics are necessarily the best hands in the management of elections.

Some professors may be excellent but there are others that are deficient in character.  But who were the beneficiaries of the fraud committed by Uduk and Ogban? Was any effort made to search for what such beneficiaries did to the professors that pushed them into the temptation of electoral fraud? Did our security agencies try to identify the quantum of material benefits which beneficiaries offered the convicts? These questions are relevant if indeed, the nation is really anxious to reduce electoral frauds. Not much can be gained through scapegoating or complete focus on election officials with no attempt to investigate those who initiated the fraud and for whose sake others committed electoral malpractices. If such beneficiaries who successfully coerced professors into doing wrong were prosecuted would they not have also compromised judges?

From what history suggests, the beneficiaries may never have been arrested at all but if they had been held and allowed to face prosecution, it is more likely that they would have wriggled out of the case. But if some of them had been unlucky to face trial before Justices Agustine Odokwo and Bassey Nkanang and perhaps a few other credible judges, they would have been in jail by now.  The point to be made therefore is that Nigerians are excited to see that the judiciary we have all been blasting for some time now still has judges that are forthright. Such judges are the ones to be rewarded for genuine and committed performance instead of those who are being favoured simply because they are friends and or relations of top political office-holders. 

However, there is need to recall that what gave room for the judges to excel was the presence in INEC at the time of Mike Igini the most credible Resident Electoral Commissioner of the decade. If Igini who was in charge of elections in Akwa Ibom State had like some of colleagues allowed himself to be compromised, there would have been no trial of electoral fraudsters anywhere. Otherwise, how do we explain the fact that despite the numerous electoral infractions in different parts of the country, it was only in Akwa Ibom that actors were made to account for their deeds. Although everyone knew Mike Igini to be incorruptible, he was not rewarded with a reappointment to the headquarters of INEC as a national commissioner. Instead, political party chieftains prayed daily for his exit. Is it not persons of exemplary conduct that deserve renewal of appointment?

Another major landmark of the week was the request by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Senate to approve the termination of the appointment of 3 Resident Electoral Commissioners RECs namely: Yunusa Ari (Adamawa) Nura Ali (Sokoto) and Ike Uzochukwu (Abia). The 3 RECs had been accused of false declaration of election results as well as bribery and corruption. Nigerians are happy that the accused persons are finally being held accountable and are in fact currently facing prosecution. But will the judges handling their cases be as diligent and forthright as the Akwa Ibom judges? If not, our current celebration may be cut short if the prosecution of the suspects is allowed to be marred by nebulous charges. It is not unusual to find a situation where it is the prosecution itself that helps to frustrate the trial of some accused persons. Until the prosecution of the 3 former RECs ends, not much can be said for now. 

The last of the 3 exciting events also concerns the role of President Tinubu in intervening to stop embarrassing conflicts. This time around, there is electrifying joy in the decision of the president to sack two Vice Chancellors and to reshuffle the governing councils of some tertiary institutions. The most remarkable of the events is the sacking of Professor Aisha Maikudi who was described by many university professors of her University of Abuja as not qualified to become Vice Chancellor. At a point Forty-three (43) Senate members of the University raised concerns over her controversial appointment, citing manipulation of the selection process. In an open letter to the President in his capacity as the Visitor to the institution, the Senate members called for the immediate dissolution of the University’s Governing Council in view of widespread irregularities, which they claimed undermined not only the credibility of the VC’s appointment but also the integrity of the institution.

The grave allegations in the open letter included ‘several key issues, such as improper composition of the Governing Council, breaches in appointment guidelines, intimidation and harassment of Senate members, and a flawed, rushed selection process.’ Tinubu’s decision to sack the Vice Chancellor has exceedingly calmed frayed nerves according to some staff of the university. In particular, it appears a wise decision to have also appointed a new acting Vice Chancellor and provided a space of 6 months for normalcy to return to the campus. As if to avoid a repeat of the lack of level playing field for applicants seeking to be VC, the president has directed that the new acting VC shall not be eligible to apply. Tinubu has taken similar steps in some other institutions especially the University of Nigeria Nsukka whose acting VC was similarly sacked just as the governing council was virtually reconstituted.

 While commending the President for his interventions in the crises in the universities, it is a matter for regret that the appointment of VCs has of recent taken the same tempo as the selection of a political party flag bearer for an election through party primaries. The implication of this is that virtually everything in Nigeria has become politicised. The president may become distracted if it becomes one of his routine schedules to resolve conflicts in academic institutions in the country. To get away from this distraction, the president must conclude his present intervention by penalizing all those involved. Sacking the VCs involved is good but not enough. Members of affected governing councils should not just be rotated; those responsible for the crises must be visibly sanctioned.  

Another remarkable thing that government must do with universities is to appoint knowledgeable members to their councils. The opportunity should not be used to reward party chieftains who are not qualified either in character or learning to be elevated into the policy making cadre of academic bodies. Otherwise, universities would become trading centres and avenues for contract awards which are the only things that can satisfy the avarice of politicians. There is also the need to stretch an intervening hand to Ministries, Departments and Agencies MDAs where many persons are currently appointed into technocrat positions for which they are ill-equipped. Politicians have no business being part of day to day running of government bodies, they should be part time board members if we want peace in our public organizations that can sustain the joyous mood of the last one week.

The House of Reps has received proposals to create 31 new states across the country. Amazing. If every proposal sails through (which I doubt), that means we will end up with 67 states since we currently have 36 of them. That would mean 67 state governors, 67 state cabinets (with thousands of commissioners, special advisers and special assistants), 67 houses of assembly (with thousands of lawmakers and their aides) and, how do I say this… 67 motorcades full of the latest models of bullet-proof SUVs. With almost every state trying to build a “cargo” airport, we could end up with more. On a different note, someone said with 31 new state capitals, grassroots development will be faster.

At this point, let us take a short journey into history. Nigeria started out in 1914 as an amalgamation of two units: the Northern Protectorate and the Southern Protectorate. Each protectorate was made up of provinces — which are mostly states today — and native authorities — which we now call councils. Nigeria practically ran a unitary system for decades, with the colonial government devolving certain powers to the native authorities for administrative purposes. As nationalism grew and Nigerians became more politically active, internal fault lines also became obvious as politics was played largely along narrow geographic and ethnic lines. There was no Nigeria as a constituency.

By 1946, Sir Arthur Richards, the governor-general, decided that Nigeria was essentially a country of three ethnic groups, so he created three regions: Northern (Hausa/Fulani), Western (Yoruba) and Eastern (Igbo). Every region had vast minorities, but the political construct was that Nigeria was built on a tripod: Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba. In 1947, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the sage, wrote ‘Path to Nigerian Freedom’, famously saying Nigeria was “a mere geographical expression”. Awo basically argued for stronger regions to make the federation work and to build a stronger entity from the geography. He criticised Sir Arthur for not consulting Nigerians before producing the constitution.

Nonetheless, Richards’ attempt at federalism started an evolution. With the criticisms and comments by Nigerians, his successor produced a more broadly accepted constitution, the MacPherson Constitution, in 1951. Nigerians were widely consulted and the constitution led to limited self-rule in the 1950s, when Awo became premier of the Western Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello premier of the Northern Region, and Prof Eyo Eta premier of the Eastern Region. Lagos retained its independent status as the federal capital. We maintained this three-region federation until after independence. It was in 1963 that Western Region minorities got what they agitated for: the Midwestern Region.

Indeed, the minorities in the regions wanted their own administrative units. The Henry Willinks Commission, set up in 1957 by the colonial government to look into the demands of the minority ethnic groups, harvested these sentiments nationwide. One thing that has been clear in Nigeria’s history is that the minority ethnic groups have always expressed misgivings about being subsumed and subjugated by the larger groups — particularly the tripod. When the Gowon administration created 12 states from the four regions in 1967, it killed two birds with one stone: fulfilling the desires of minorities to have their own states as well as weakening the breakaway Eastern Region.

In 1976, the 12 states became 19 under Gen Murtala Muhammed. We did not create more until 11 years later. That was in 1987 when Gen Ibrahim Babangida added two. As we prepared to transit to democracy, he added another nine states in 1991, taking the total to 30. And in 1996, they became 36 states under Gen Sani Abacha. Regardless, the agitation for more states has been non-stop. Those who had initially rejoiced soon started feeling marginalised in their new states. Today, we have 31 proposals on the table of the House of Reps. If the proposals succeed, maybe we would be thinking of 774 states in the distant future. It appears every local government would fancy becoming a state.

Why this unending clamour for new states? I’ve already mentioned the major reason: people feel marginalised in their current homes and would prefer a state where they would dominate. They don’t say the second part openly, but that is a driving force. I have looked at the list several times and I can see no other reason for some people to be clamouring for a state other than the desire to be a big fish in a small ocean rather than a small fish in a big ocean. There is a feeling that if they have their own state, they will no longer play second fiddle. However, the clamour is usually officially anchored on the need for “grassroots” development — which is a legitimate objective, in any case.

Will new states address complaints of marginalisation? That is not a sure thing. Even in states that look homogenous, there are internal divisions. In Ogun state, for instance, the Yewa subgroup of Yoruba complain that they have not produced a governor. If you go ahead and create Yewa state (it was not proposed, by the way), there will still be some tendencies there that will feel marginalised in another eight years. We will start to see divisions along the lines of Ado-Odo/Ota, Ipokia, Yewa South, Yewa North and Imeko Afon. The more you atomise a society, the more you magnify latent differences that were previously not so obvious. They could be religious, historical or lingual.

Will the creation of new states solve development problems? There can’t be a straight answer to that. Some states may prosper and become viable, but others may struggle. As things stand today, many states are not a going concern. If they were businesses, they would have been shut down long ago. Internally generated revenue (IGR) in many states is mainly from government contracts and personal income taxes of civil servants. The IGR cannot pay the bills. The federation allocation — which deploys a formular to make sure no state is fiscally left behind — is the saving grace. The irony, though, is that every proposal for a new state comes with lofty claims of potential self-sufficiency!
Will the creation of new states satisfy those clamouring for the restructuring of Nigeria? This is a question I cannot answer if I am asked. I have been listening to the proponents of restructuring and what I think I hear them say all the time is that we should go back to regions which, by the current configuration, would mean the six geo-political zones. One faction of the restructuring movement wants us to do away with the 36 states so that we would have only six houses of assembly, six governors, six cabinets — and six convoys of the latest bullet-proof SUVs. I do not believe this faction will accept state creation as it may end up defeating the purpose and practice of ethnic nationalism.

Under their restructuring model, the entire Yoruba ethnic group, for instance, will come under one governor. That means the people of Egba, Awori, Ekiti, Ife, Ijesha, Ijebu, Igbomina, Oyo, Ondo, Owo, Ikale, Eko and Oke-Ogun (some will even include Okun) will now have one governor and they will be happy ever after. It is a bit complicated. Oke-Ogun people are already complaining that they are being marginalised in Oyo state and that they have not been allowed to produce a governor. When will it reach their turn if the entire Yoruba groups come under one governor? From their proposal, it seems to me that the Oke-Ogun people actually want more states. I could well be very wrong.

And now to the most important question: will new states be created? Maybe that is where we should have started the discussion from. If you noticed, only military governments have been able to create states — and by fiat. Yet, the Midwestern was created in 1963 under the Tafawa Balewa administration but that is a topic for another day. However, under the 1999 Constitution (as the case was under the 1979 Constitution), it would be easier for Manchester United to win the 2024/2025 English Premier League than to create a new state in Nigeria. The conditions are so stringent that it will take an unusual cooperation and self-sacrifice of the political elite nationwide to make it happen.

Section 8 (1) says: “An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of creating a new State shall only be passed if – (a) a request, supported by at least two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new State) in each of the following, namely – (i) the Senate and the House of Representatives, (ii) the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and (iii) the local government councils in respect of the area, is received by the National Assembly; (b) a proposal for the creation of the State is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated.” Let us take a pause.

Now, in the event that the process gets there, we will go into a very costly and cumbersome stage as required by Section 8 (1) (c) which says “the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly”.  Please read again. That means a referendum held in 36 states! Also, a simple majority of 36 houses of assembly must support it. We can then finally move to Section 8 (1) (d) which says “the proposal is approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly”. The framers should have simply told us not to bother with state creation!

Don’t take my word for it, but I do not know of any governor that would, with his eyes open, allow his state to be divided under him. If the proposals were to improbably pass the early stages, the critical approval by 36 houses of assembly will be difficult to come by. I would rather propose that an extra state is created in the south-east as a political consensus to address the imbalance. We can also create more LGAs across the federation if we are truly interested in grassroots development. Finally, it is important for every state to consciously promote justice, equity, accommodation and peace as we continue this tedious nation-building process. Atomising Nigeria is definitely not the solution.

And Four Other Things…

BASIC EDUCATION  
The federal government is considering making 12 years the basic education in Nigeria. In case this sounds Greek to you, it means before you can get a school certificate, you must have finished senior secondary school. If I understand it well, that means we will now have Year 1 to Year 12. Rather the 6-3-3-4 (four years for tertiary education), it will now be 12-4. I think I get the idea. Nobody uses primary school leaving certificate anymore, so terminating your education after six years does not serve any purpose. Maybe it will make you go further. However, stakeholders must buy into this. There will be trade-offs, so we must not rush except the pros outweigh the cons. Homework. .

SPEED AND SENSE
It has finally happened. The Lagos state ministry of transportation has installed cameras to monitor speeding and manage traffic flows in some parts of Lagos. For now, Alapere and Mobolaji Bank Anthony Way will be monitored by speed cameras with a fine of N50,000 hanging over whoever speeds above 80km/h and 60km/h respectively. E-police will catch red light violators at Nurudeen Olowopopo Road, Alausa, with a fine of N20,000. I knew it would come to this one day. I can assure you that Lagos state will make billions of naira from this. But I am curious: will the cameras and e-police also catch government vehicles and security agencies? They break the law the most. Watching..  

TO BE FRANK
I was very worried recently when some people started a social media campaign purporting to promote Mr Frank Mba, a deputy inspector general of police (DIG), for the position of inspector general of police (IGP) which is not vacant as Mr Kayode Egbetokun is in situ. I happen to know Mba very well. I know he is very close to the IGP, so this media campaign must be hurting him badly. Unfortunately for those promoting a certain narrative about him, IGPs are not appointed on the basis of posts and reposts. It is a political appointment. There is no waiting list. The political authorities can choose as they like. If these internet warriors truly love Mba, they should stop hurting him. Wisdom.    

NO COMMENT
Mr Kabiru Turaki, former minister of special duties and inter-governmental affairs, has been arraigned in court on false marriage, adultery, and other offences. He denies all counts. He is accused of deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, adultery and criminal intimidation “contrary to sections 383, 387, and 389 of the Penal Code.” He allegedly cohabited with Ms Hadiza Musa Bafta in Abuja. He was accused of renting a place for her at Guzape and making her believe he was married to her and continuously having sex with her which produced a beautiful baby girl. Turaki allegedly threatened to use his influence and position to terminate the lives of mother and child. Wonderful.