January 2026 ~ Sanafflatus blog

Procedures for the Creation of New States in Nigeria: Constitutional Provision and Legal Framework.

The persistent agitation and outcry for the creation of more states in Nigeria is alarming. This is not a new desire but an age-long one. This article considers the political system of government practised in Nigeria, federalism, an overview of history of creation of states and the constitutional procedures for the creation of states in Nigeria. A careful consideration of these constitutional procedures showcase that the procedures are cumbersome and stringent. The aim of paper is to educate the agitators of creation of more states in Nigeria on the constitutional procedures of creation of states.Also, considering the ever-impossible realization of the desire owing to the stringent constitutional procedures, it is suggested that there should be a recourse to the amendment of the constitution as regards the political system practised in Nigeria.

The creation of new states has been a significant aspect of the country's political evolution, often motivated by demands for ethnic equity, resource control, administrative convenience, and reduction of marginalisation. Since independence in 1960, when Nigeria had three regions, the number of subnational units has increased through various exercises, predominantly under military administrations. The last states were created in 1996, bringing the total to 36. Under the democratic dispensation since 1999, the process has proven extremely challenging due to stringent constitutional requirements, and no new state has been created as of January 2026.

Pursuant to section 2(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999( as amended), Nigeria is a federation consisting of states and Federal Capital Territory. Also, by virtue of 3(1) CFRN,1999 (as amended) there are 36 states in Nigeria. All the states along with the FCT are enumerated in the above section.

Break down of the Constitutional Procedures for the creation of States.

Section 8 (1) (a-d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is the only legal authority for the creation of new state in Nigeria.

The procedure is as follows:

1. Formal Request

A request for the creation of a new state must be submitted to the National Assembly. This request must be supported by at least a two-thirds majority of members representing the demanding area in:

(i) The Senate and the (ii) House of Representatives;

(iii) The relevant State House(s) of Assembly; and

(iv) The local government councils in the area. See s 8 (1) (a)

2. Referendum

Upon receiving a valid request, the National Assembly directs the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum in the area demanding the new state. The proposal must be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the people in that area. See s 8 (1) (b)

3. Approval by State

Houses of Assembly

The certified result of the referendum must then be approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation, supported by a simple majority of members of their respective Houses of Assembly. This requires resolutions passed by simple majority in the Houses of Assembly of a majority of the 36 states (at least 19 states). See s 8 (1) (c)

4. Final Legislative Approval

The proposal must be approved by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives). The National Assembly then passes an Act creating the new state, including consequential provisions for its name, headquarters, and amendments to the Constitution's First Schedule. See 8 (1) (d)

Going by the above constitutional procedures, it means that creation of states is a national matter which requires national consensus. This is provided to prevent unilateral or regionally imposed changes.

In conclusion, section 8 (1)(a-d) CFRN, 1999 (as amended) is the legal authority in respect to creation of states in Nigeria. All the laid down processes must be followed. It is a bitter truth that the procedures are cumbersome. To achieve such a task in a country like ours which is divided with several factors such as ethnicity, regionalism, religions etc it is impossible. However, there is a way out from the conundrum. The agitators should consider seeking for the amendment of this particular section. Though this may seem strenuous too considering the provision of section 9 (3&4) CFRN, 1999 (as amended). From my book, seeking for the amendment of the constitution as regards the political system practised in Nigeria is more achievable than clamouring for creation of states.

San Afflatus.

Test of Territorial Jurisdiction: The Application of the Effects Principle in the US Military Operation in Venezuela.

The effects principle is a concept in international law that allows a state to exercise prescriptive jurisdiction over conduct occurring outside its borders if that conduct produces direct, substantial, and foreseeable effects within its territory. This principle originated from the antitrust contexts (e.g., the U.S. case United States v. Aluminum Co. of America in 1945), it has been extended to other areas like criminal law, particularly in cases involving transnational crimes such as drug trafficking.

This doctrine provides a legal basis for a country like the United States to apply its domestic laws extraterritorially, but it does not authorize enforcement actions (e.g., arrests or military interventions) on foreign soil without consent, which are governed by separate rules on sovereignty and the use of force.

In the context of the U.S. military operation on January 3, 2026, which resulted in the capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, the effects doctrine primarily applies to the jurisdictional basis for the U.S. criminal charges against them, rather than the military action itself.

Application of the Effects Principle to the Charges

The U.S. indictment against Maduro and Flores, unsealed in the Southern District of New York, includes charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such weapons. These supersede a 2020 indictment on similar grounds. The allegations center on Maduro's alleged involvement in the "Cartel of the Suns," a Venezuelan military-linked group accused of facilitating cocaine shipments from Venezuela through routes that ultimately affect the U.S. (e.g., drug imports contributing to public health crises, violence, and economic harm).

The effects principle justifies the U.S. applying its laws (e.g., under the Controlled Substances Act and anti-terrorism statutes) to Maduro's conduct in Venezuela because the alleged activities—conspiring to flood the U.S. with narcotics—have direct and substantial effects on U.S. territory, such as increased drug addiction, overdose deaths, and related criminal activity. U.S. courts have long upheld this in drug cases, viewing intent to cause harm in the U.S. as sufficient for jurisdiction, even if the defendant never set foot there (e.g., precedents like United States v. Noriega and various cartel prosecutions). This aligns with broader U.S. practice in transnational crimes, where effects-based jurisdiction avoids the need for territorial presence.

While the doctrine supports the charging and potential trial of Maduro, it does not extend to the method of capture. Enforcement jurisdiction (e.g., arrests abroad) requires the host state's consent under international law, absent which it violates territorial sovereignty (per the Lotus case and UN Charter Article 2(4)).

The U.S. operation lacked Venezuelan consent, making it a breach of sovereignty and potentially an unlawful use of force, not self-defense (as drug trafficking does not constitute an "armed attack" under Article 51). U.S. courts may still proceed under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which allows trials despite unlawful abductions (e.g., U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain in 1992).

Critics argue the operation sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian states to justify similar interventions, undermining the UN Charter.

In summary, the effects doctrine underpins the U.S. legal authority to indict Maduro based on the domestic impacts of his alleged crimes, but the military "invasion" aspect raises separate violations of international law on force and sovereignty.

San Afflatus.