The controversy surrounding the proposed creation of Anioma State has, in recent times, intensified—particularly on social media—where debates rage over which geopolitical zone the new state should belong to: the South-South or the South-East. At the crux of this debate is not just geography, but history, identity, equity, and federal character.
Proponents of Anioma State’s inclusion in the South-East argue that the zone deserves an additional state to correct the long-standing structural imbalance among Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. Indeed, the South-East remains the only zone with five states (Anambra, Imo, Abia, Enugu and Ebonyi), while others boast six or seven. To them, allocating Anioma to the South-East would be a step toward correcting this anomaly.
Others claim cultural and religious affinity between Anioma people—predominantly Igbo-speaking—and their South-Eastern cousins, further fueling the demand for Anioma to be absorbed into the zone.
However, this line of reasoning, while emotionally appealing, falters under historical scrutiny and administrative logic. Nigeria’s geopolitical zoning system was not designed strictly on ethno-linguistic or religious lines. If it were, the South-South would not comprise a mosaic of ethnic groups such as the Urhobo, Ijaw, Efik, Ibibio, Itsekiri, Edo, Isoko, and even Yoruba communities. Nor would the North-Central host a diversity of Yoruba, Nupe, Gwari, Idoma, Igala, and Tiv peoples.
Even in the northern states, one finds a rich tapestry of tribes, faiths, and traditions coexisting within the same administrative boundaries. Homogeneity, therefore, is not and has never been the hallmark of Nigerian state or regional delineation.
A deeper look at Anioma’s historical trajectory supports its placement within the South-South, not the South-East. The ethnic nationalities that make up the Anioma region—Aniocha, Oshimili, Ika, and Ndokwa—have never been part of the old Eastern Region, from which today’s South-East emerged. Rather, their history is inextricably tied to the Western and Midwestern geopolitical configurations.
Before the creation of Delta State in 1991, the Anioma people were constituents of the former Bendel State—a product of the fusion of Midwestern and Western interests. Going further back, the region was under the jurisdiction of the Midwestern Region (created in 1963), which itself was carved out from the Western Region. This places Anioma firmly outside the historical boundaries of the old Eastern Region.
Even at the height of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), Anioma was not fully integrated into Biafra’s command structure, despite some sympathies. Administratively, the region remained distinct. This fact reinforces the argument that geographical proximity or linguistic similarity does not automatically equate to political or administrative unity.
Moreover, from a federal character perspective, it is more logical to situate Anioma in the South-South. The proposed state will naturally evolve from the Delta North Senatorial District—comprising nine local government areas—all of which are currently within Delta State, a South-South entity. Proposing to transfer these nine local government areas to the South-East, merely because of the presence of cultural affinity with three or so communities across the Niger in present-day Anambra State, would be an exercise in numerical injustice and administrative absurdity.
Rather, it makes far more sense, both administratively and politically, for the few communities across the Niger who wish to be part of Anioma State to be joined to their kin in the South-South. This approach preserves the historical continuity of the Anioma people while also aligning with Nigeria’s pattern of state creation, which tends to retain existing administrative boundaries and geopolitical logic.
Additionally, a South-South Anioma State will further balance regional development and reduce tensions around resource control and political representation. The region is rich in human and natural resources, and its development potential would be better realised within a South-South framework that already accommodates its unique identity and economic interests.
It suffices to state, at this juncture, that the argument on fairness and equity appears to have fallen flat on its stomach, considering that there are several other agitations in the southeast for more states to be created from existing states there, too. Anioma should not be a sacrificial lamb. More so, the states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River, who were part of the old eastern region have since identified with the South-south geopolitical zone, regardless of proximity concerns.
Therefore, the creation of Anioma State is a noble idea whose time may have come. But in resolving the question of its geopolitical location, sentiment must give way to historical fact, administrative coherence, and national balance. The Anioma people, by reason of their political heritage, administrative evolution, and existing location within Delta State, rightfully belong in the South-South. Attempts to uproot them into the South-East—however well-intentioned—risk erasing their distinct historical identity and undermining the federal logic on which Nigeria was built.
