Like the corrupt and perennially lazy workman blaming his tools, the camp of the drowning Ogun East senator, Gbenga Daniel, has not ceased bellyaching over their principal’s failed 2027 re-election bid. The latest excuse—that Governor Dapo Abiodun is behind the failure of Daniel’s state creation gambit—is an afterthought cooked up to pacify bruised political egos.

In a treatise titled “Governor Dapo Abiodun and the Stalled Dream of Ijebu-Remo State,” with the rider “Senate Triumph Sabotaged in the House,” Victor Ojelabi, publisher of the blog Freelanews, piles up allegations against the Ogun State governor, accusing him of truncating the state creation initiative by allegedly influencing Ogun APC lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

Seeking to avoid the burden of proving his claims, Ojelabi repeatedly deploys words such as “allegedly” and “reportedly” while presenting speculation as fact. According to him, “Governor Dapo Abiodun stands accused of single-handedly sabotaging the creation of Ijebu-Remo State, a move that could have transformed the region into a booming economic powerhouse.” He further claims, without presenting any verifiable evidence, that Senator Daniel had “reportedly secured a staggering 75 signatures from distinguished senators, pushing the Ijebu-Remo State Creation Bill with determination and strategic brilliance.” Yet, he fails to explain how such an allegedly persuasive legislator could not secure corresponding support in the House of Representatives.

Even if one agrees, for the sake of argument, that 75 signatures constitute a significant political endorsement, it still stretches logic beyond reasonable limits to suggest that a proposal capable of attracting such support in one chamber would inexplicably fail to secure meaningful traction in the other solely because of Governor Abiodun. Rather than casting the governor in a bad light, this narrative raises questions about the seriousness and preparedness of those who now claim to be the sole proponents of the proposal.

A serious advocate of state creation would ordinarily prioritise painstaking consultations and broad-based support across both chambers of the National Assembly. Failing to secure such support while blaming others for the outcome reveals a troubling lack of political homework.

Losers will always search for excuses, and it cannot be plainer that these characters have struggled to come to terms with the loss of a senatorial ticket they apparently considered their birthright. They have accused virtually everyone of conspiracy, including President Bola Tinubu—the same political leader on whose behalf they once floated a “BAT-OGD” movement—alleging collusion with Governor Abiodun to edge their principal out of the 2027 race.

In their eagerness to shift blame, they conveniently forget that agitation for state creation predates the current controversy by decades. Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, no new state has been created in Nigeria. Even attempts to create additional local government councils have often resulted in prolonged constitutional and political disputes. Nigerians need only recall the challenges encountered during efforts to create additional local governments in Lagos State in the early years of the Fourth Republic.

The reason is simple: the Nigerian Constitution deliberately makes state creation one of the most difficult political exercises imaginable. It is designed that way because creating a state is not merely a matter of drawing a new boundary on a map; it is a fundamental restructuring of the federation. Section 8 of the Constitution imposes a maze of requirements involving elected representatives from affected areas, local government councils, State Houses of Assembly, the National Assembly, and the electorate itself through a referendum. Every stage presents a hurdle capable of terminating the process.

Indeed, the Constitution practically requires a national consensus before any new state can emerge. The proposal must survive multiple veto points, any one of which can kill it. That is why state creation remains one of the rarest constitutional exercises in the federation. It is easier to campaign for a new state than to create one.

Beyond the constitutional requirements lie even more daunting political realities. Every new state changes the distribution of federal revenue, legislative representation, ministerial appointments, and access to federal institutions. Inevitably, every proposal produces winners and losers. Those who stand to lose influence or resources naturally oppose it.

Approving one new state would also open the floodgates to dozens of similar demands across the federation. This is precisely why state creation has remained largely theoretical since 1999. In recent constitution review exercises, agitators demanded dozens of new states from different regions. If one is granted today, proponents of all the others would insist on equal treatment tomorrow. In Oyo State, there are agitations for Ibadan State and New Oyo State. In Lagos, there are demands for Lagoon State. Similar agitations exist across the federation. The question then becomes: if every region wants its own state, where does it end?

There is also the inconvenient economic reality that many of the existing 36 states struggle to survive without monthly federal allocations. Most generate insufficient internal revenue to sustain themselves. Creating more states means more governors, more commissioners, more assemblies, more bureaucracies, and more recurrent expenditure. At a time when the national conversation is about economic efficiency and reducing the cost of governance, many policymakers view additional states as a financial burden rather than a solution.

There is also the question of timing. At a period when many Nigerians are questioning the sustainability of the existing federal structure and calling for stronger economic viability among states, the creation of additional administrative units is bound to attract intense scrutiny. Any serious advocate of state creation must first answer the question of viability before seeking constitutional approval.

State creation also raises contentious issues relating to boundaries, ownership of resources, traditional institutions, and ethnic identity. Communities that appear united in agitation often become divided when questions arise about the location of a capital city, the sharing of assets, or political dominance within the proposed state. History has shown that such disagreements can derail even the most enthusiastic campaigns.

Against this backdrop, the attempt to blame Governor Abiodun for the failure of the Ijebu State creation proposal is not merely dishonest; it is absurd. If presidents, elder statesmen, constitutional conferences, influential regional blocs, and determined agitators have failed to create a state in nearly three decades, how exactly was Senator Daniel expecting to achieve this constitutional miracle? More importantly, why did a man who allegedly conquered the Senate fail to secure corresponding support in the House of Representatives?

The more plausible explanation is that the state creation campaign was never conceived as a serious constitutional project. It was a political slogan designed to generate excitement and sympathy ahead of the APC primary cycle. It was intended to create the illusion of a historic mission rather than deliver a constitutionally attainable objective.

The timing of the agitation raises legitimate questions. Aspirations for statehood are usually long-term, multi-generational projects pursued consistently across political cycles. They are not typically activated only when an incumbent office-holder faces a difficult re-election contest. That coincidence alone invites scrutiny.

If sincere agitators for new states have not succeeded since 1999, how could a senator who appeared to be using the state creation gambit to bolster his re-election prospects succeed? In the Senate, Gbenga Daniel is not among the most influential voices. He is not among the senators whose interventions regularly shape national discourse. By contrast, on virtually any issue in the polity, Nigerians know where senators such as Adams Oshiomhole and Ali Ndume stand because their views are frequently heard. When last did the Nigerian public hear Senator Daniel take a defining position on a major national issue?

The man has been busy fighting his state government instead of giving the people of Ogun East quality representation. To reduce the failure of Ijebu State creation to Governor Abiodun’s alleged lack of support is to ignore the possibility that the project itself lacked the broad political and constitutional backing necessary for success.

Besides, how logical is it for a sitting governor to preside over the dissolution of the very state he was elected to govern? And if Daniel were truly sincere about this cause, why did he not vigorously champion it throughout his eight years as governor? Why did the agitation suddenly become urgent when his political future became uncertain? Does it mean that Ijebu State can only be created if it aligns with Daniel’s personal ambition?

Perhaps the greatest irony is that a politician whose political positioning has frequently evolved with prevailing circumstances now seeks to present himself as the unquestioned custodian of a movement rooted in history, identity, and collective heritage. Questions of identity are sensitive matters, and those whose political trajectory has frequently invited debate should exercise caution before appropriating a people’s aspiration as a personal political project.

While the people of Ijebu and Remo have every democratic right to agitate for a new state, such agitation cannot be tied to the political survival of any single individual. Besides, Ojelabi shot himself in the foot by claiming that his principal is agitating for a so-called Ijebu-Remo State when the agitation has historically been about Ijebu State. If you are going to defend Ijebu State, do so without opportunistically redefining it. The sudden attempt to rebrand the agitation only raises further questions about sincerity, clarity of purpose, and motive.

The truth remains stubborn. The Constitution—not Governor Abiodun—is the greatest obstacle to state creation in Nigeria. The sooner Daniel and his sympathisers come to terms with that reality, the sooner they can stop manufacturing conspiracies to explain what was, from the outset, a politically convenient but constitutionally improbable project. State creation is not achieved through press statements, sponsored articles, or election-season sloganeering. It requires consensus, credibility, and constitutional compliance—three commodities that appear to have been in short supply throughout this ill-fated adventure.

Bakare leads a youth advocacy group in Abeokuta, Ogun State.