Being excerpt of a paper presentation by AVM Monday Riku Morgan (rtd) as a response to the recent creation of Development Commissions for the extant six geopolitical zones.
This paper argues that the adoption of a six-zonal political structure in Nigeria, as recently partitioned by President Tinubu, could potentially address long-standing concerns about marginalization and governance inefficiencies. Nigeria’s current arrangement of 36 States and the FCT has not resolved ethnic, regional, and political tensions, leading to continuous agitation for the creation of more states. By shifting focus from States to economic development zones, the structure would allow for greater resource management, economic growth, and stability across the regions, and reduce the risk of domination by one ethnic group over another.
Historically, the amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria in 1914 brought together diverse ethnic groups, cultures, and interests. From the outset, there were concerns about dominance, whether by population, economic power, or political influence. The continuous creation of States was seen as a solution to these fears, giving ethnic nationalities and regions a sense of security and political representation. However, with 36 States and the FCT, the challenge has shifted to inefficient governance, excessive bureaucracy, and strained resources, while agitations for more States have persisted.
SEE ALSO: Maximum government and minimum governance
President Tinubu’s six-zonal structure presents an opportunity to address these issues by focusing on regional economic development and governance. Each zone would focus on harnessing its natural and human resources for its development, allowing for a more strategic allocation of resources. By moving to a zonal arrangement, the risk of marginalization would diminish because zones would have more autonomy, and governance would be more inclusive at a regional level, rather than being fragmented into multiple States with limited power.
Under this structure, the current States would become provinces, and the senatorial districts would have quasi-autonomous powers, reporting to a zonal council at the zonal headquarters. This system of decentralization and regional empowerment would enhance security, as zones would have more resources and autonomy to establish independent Police systems, tailored to the specific security challenges in each zone.
PLEASE READ: Why Nigerians should not pay tax
The role of traditional institutions is also crucial in this zonal arrangement. In many Nigerian communities, traditional rulers are central to maintaining peace, resolving conflicts, and providing leadership at the grassroots level. Reinstituting these traditional institutions into the zonal security and governance architecture would create a more holistic and culturally resonant approach to governance.
Furthermore, the zonal structure would promote healthy competition among the regions, leading to improved governance, accountability, and leadership. As zones work to attract investments, improve infrastructure, and enhance their economies, leaders would be pressured to perform better, reduce corruption, and deliver on their promises to the people. In this way, the six-zonal structure would contribute to the overall development of the country.
READ ALSO: High cost of governance as an impediment to development
The paper concludes that adopting the six-zonal political system is a viable solution to Nigeria’s challenges of marginalization, poor governance, and security. It is time for Nigeria to consider a system that emphasizes regional cooperation, economic development, and stronger governance frameworks that promote unity, inclusivity, and accountability.
