By Eziashi Walters Onyeisi
The advocacy for the creation of Anioma State within the South East geopolitical zone raises several concerns that warrant closer scrutiny. While the desire for statehood is undeniable, the approach and rationale presented merit critical examination.
Firstly, the assertion that geopolitical zones are merely administrative conveniences without significance to identity oversimplifies the issue. The establishment of six regional development commissions underscores the growing relevance of regional considerations in Nigeria’s development framework. Geographical region matters, and Anioma’s historical and cultural contexts cannot be dismissed.
Anioma’s historical trajectory is distinct and separate from the South East region. Having transitioned from Southern Nigeria to Western Nigeria, to Midwestern Nigeria, and eventually the South-South region, Anioma has never been part of the South East. Under colonial administration, Aniocha, Oshimili, and Ika were under the Benin Province, while Ndoshimili and Ukwuani (Ndokwa) were under the Delta Province. Official records show that the Mid-Western Region was created by an Act of the National Assembly in 1963 from the Benin and Delta provinces.
On May 27, 1967, the Mid-Western Region was reorganized into a state by General Gowon’s government and became known as the Mid-Western State. Later, on March 17, 1976, the Mid-Western State was renamed Bendel State. Finally, on August 27, 1991, Bendel State was divided into Delta State and Edo State. Merging Anioma with the South East for state creation would be a departure from this historical context without a compelling rationale.
The claim that a new state will only be created in the South East is unfounded. State creation agitations exist across all six regions, and each should be considered on its merit. Anioma State should stand on its own merit within the South-South region rather than being an appendage to the Southeast.
Anioma’s cultural diversity, with roots in the Benin Empire, Yoruba, Igala, and a smaller Igbo component, highlights the complexity of its identity. This diversity underscores the need for a nuanced approach that respects unique cultural heritages.
The history of the Anioma State creation struggle reveals that the original proponents never envisioned Anioma as part of the South East. The refusal to include areas like Onitsha and Ogbaru demonstrates a clear understanding of Anioma’s distinctiveness.
Moreover, claims of Anioma’s marginalization within Delta State are misrepresentations. Anioma has produced the immediate past governor and holds significant offices, indicating representation and influence.
The disregard for dissenting voices within Anioma undermines the democratic process. State creation should be a collective effort that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders.
The mention of referendums in Delta, Anambra, and Imo raises questions about inclusivity and fairness. Anioma’s views and aspirations should be prioritized.
In conclusion, Anioma State creation requires a nuanced approach that respects its distinct identity and engages all stakeholders. It should be based on merit rather than regional quotas.
Anioma State creation should be based on merit, not regional quotas.