The Time Has Come for Radical Thinking, Genuine Restructuring and a New National Beginning
By Odesola JF., PhD
There comes a time in the life of every nation when its people must summon the courage to ask difficult questions about the way they are governed. There comes a time when patriotism must mean more than singing the national anthem, waving the national flag or repeating the familiar promise that Nigeria will be great. There comes a time when we must pause, examine our journey, confront our failures and decide whether we are genuinely moving forward or merely going round in circles.
For Nigeria, that time is now.
We cannot continue to do the same things, follow the same methods, operate the same arrangements and expect a completely different result. To keep repeating a failed process while expecting an extraordinary outcome is to misunderstand the very nature of progress. Albert Einstein is popularly associated with the observation that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. Whether or not the saying originated with him, its message speaks directly to Nigeria’s present predicament.
Our nation, my nation, stands at a crossroads. We have enormous human and natural resources, a vibrant population, a rich cultural heritage, entrepreneurial citizens and a younger generation with extraordinary potential. Yet, after decades of independence, we continue to struggle with insecurity, unemployment, poverty, failing public services, political distrust, infrastructural deficits and a governance structure that many Nigerians believe is not delivering the results they deserve.
How long must we continue like this?
How long must we celebrate our potential without adequately translating it into prosperity? How long must we defend an arrangement that leaves too many communities feeling excluded, too many states financially dependent and too many citizens wondering whether the Nigerian project is working for them?
Nigeria does not lack ideas. What we often lack is the political courage to examine those ideas honestly, rise above narrow interests and undertake the difficult reforms required to build a country that works for everyone.
The time has come to think deeper, move beyond familiar arguments and consider whether our present system is capable of delivering the Nigeria we desire.
A Viral Proposal That Deserves a Serious National Conversation
A document circulating on social media under the title Nigeria Geo-Political Zone Bill 2026 has reopened the debate about restructuring the Nigerian federation. The proposal, associated with the restructuring traced to Ayo Akinfe, has attracted attention because of the scale of the changes it envisages.
It is important to establish the facts from the outset. Based on the information presently available to me, I have not verified that this document has been formally introduced as a bill by the President or a member of the National Assembly, or that the National Assembly has passed it into law. It should therefore be treated as a proposal circulating in public discourse, not as an enacted law or a confirmed government programme. Its precise legal status should be established through official parliamentary and government records.
That clarification should not end the discussion. On the contrary, it should encourage us to examine the proposal on its merits, separate its verifiable provisions from speculation and ask whether its underlying ideas could help Nigeria overcome its structural difficulties.
The proposal envisages the constitutional recognition of the country’s six geopolitical zones as a distinct tier of government between the federal and state governments. It also suggests increasing the number of states from 36 to 42, with seven states in each geopolitical zone.
Under the proposed arrangement, revenue would be distributed among states, the Federation Account, geopolitical zones and a National Trust Fund. The suggested proportions are 50 per cent for states, 20 per cent for the Federation Account, 15 per cent for the geopolitical zones and 15 per cent for the National Trust Fund.
The zones would assume greater responsibilities for regional policing, electricity generation and distribution, transportation, specialist healthcare and other shared services. Their leadership would rotate among the governors within each zone, while a chief executive and a supporting civil service would coordinate the administration of zonal affairs.
The proposal also contemplates a mechanism through which a financially distressed state could receive assistance from its geopolitical zone, with federal intervention available if necessary.
These are substantial ideas. They touch the heart of Nigeria’s constitutional structure, fiscal federalism, security arrangements and development strategy.
Whether we agree with every detail or not, we should recognise that the proposal has brought an important question back to the centre of national conversation: Is Nigeria’s present system of governance fit for the challenges of the future?
That question deserves more than social-media arguments. It deserves a serious, informed and inclusive national debate.
When an Arrangement Stops Working, We Must Find the Courage to Change It
One of Nigeria’s greatest challenges is the tendency to treat inherited political arrangements as though they are beyond examination. We sometimes behave as if questioning the structure of government is equivalent to questioning the existence of Nigeria itself.
That is a mistake.
A nation can remain united while reforming its institutions. Indeed, a federation becomes stronger when its component units believe that the system is fair, productive and responsive to their needs.
The Nigerian federation has undergone significant changes since independence. The country moved from a regional structure to a system of states, eventually reaching the present 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. These changes were often justified by the desire to improve administration, address minority concerns and bring government closer to the people.
Yet, the questions have not disappeared. Instead, new ones have emerged.
Are the states financially viable? Does the federal government exercise too much control over matters that could be managed more effectively at state or regional levels? Are our geopolitical zones merely convenient political labels, or could they become useful platforms for coordinated development? Why should neighbouring states struggle independently to finance projects that could be planned and delivered more efficiently together?
Consider transportation, electricity, specialist hospitals, agricultural value chains and regional security. These do not always fit neatly within state boundaries. A highway may connect several states. A power project may serve an entire region. A specialist cancer centre may be more affordable and sustainable when jointly funded by several states than when every state attempts to build and maintain a comparable facility independently.
There is a compelling argument for regional cooperation.
The question is not whether Nigeria should change for the sake of change. The question is whether we can design a system that delivers better security, better services, more accountable leadership and greater economic opportunity than the one we have today.
We must never confuse familiarity with effectiveness. A system is not necessarily good simply because we have lived with it for many years.
Six Geopolitical Zones: From Political Labels to Engines of Development
Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones already play an important role in political discussions, representation and national planning. However, they are not currently constitutionally established governments equivalent to the federal, state and local tiers.
The proposal to give them constitutional status raises the possibility of turning regional cooperation into a more structured system of governance.
Imagine a geopolitical zone jointly planning its major roads, developing an integrated electricity network, establishing specialist medical centres, coordinating economic investment and addressing security threats that cross state boundaries.
Imagine states pooling resources to establish regional industrial parks, agricultural processing facilities, technology hubs and vocational training centres. Instead of six or seven separate administrations duplicating expensive projects, a zone could coordinate investments based on shared priorities and comparative advantages.
Such cooperation could help Nigeria unlock the benefits of scale.
But the success of this arrangement would depend on how it is designed. A zonal government must not become another political layer created simply to provide more offices, contracts, allowances and appointments. If it duplicates existing responsibilities without improving outcomes, it will deepen the very problems it is intended to solve.
The guiding principle must be simple: every new institution must justify its existence through measurable public benefit.
If a zonal authority is established, Nigerians should know precisely what it is responsible for, how it is funded, who audits its expenditure, how its leaders are held accountable and what happens when it fails to perform.
The objective must be better government, not more government.
Forty-Two States: Can Numerical Balance Produce Genuine Fairness?
One of the most striking elements of the proposal is the suggestion that Nigeria should have 42 states, with seven states in each geopolitical zone, and that the Constitution should prohibit the creation of any additional states thereafter.
Supporters may argue that equalising the number of states would address long-standing perceptions of political imbalance. The Southeast, in particular, has historically had fewer states than several other geopolitical zones. Since state numbers can influence representation and the allocation of some public resources, the perception of unequal treatment deserves careful consideration.
Nevertheless, we must ask whether numerical equality automatically translates into fairness.
Seven states in every zone may create symmetry on paper, but Nigeria’s zones differ considerably in population, geographical size, economic activity, ethnic composition and infrastructure needs. Equal numbers of states would not necessarily produce equal representation in every institution or equal access to public resources.
Furthermore, creating new states carries significant financial and administrative consequences. Each new state requires governance structures, public institutions, personnel, infrastructure and recurrent expenditure. Unless new states have credible economic foundations and viable revenue sources, their creation could increase dependence on federal transfers rather than promote development.
There are also difficult questions about the proposed boundaries and capitals. The suggested creation of entities such as Anioma, Orashi, West Izon, Mambilla, Gurara and Odo Oya states would affect existing political and administrative arrangements. Communities may welcome some proposals and oppose others.
Who selected these proposed boundaries? What criteria were applied? Were the affected communities consulted? How would competing claims over land, resources, traditional institutions and local identity be resolved?
These are not minor details to be settled after the political announcement. They are central to the legitimacy of the entire exercise.
The answer cannot simply be to create states until every political group is satisfied. Nor should historical grievances be dismissed because addressing them is inconvenient.
We need a transparent framework for determining state viability, equitable representation, community consent and administrative sustainability. Any decision must emerge from constitutional procedures and credible consultation, not from a list circulated online.
The goal is not merely to produce 42 states. It is to produce a more just, stable and productive federation… To be continued.
