Anioma State At The Crossroads: Identity, Power Games & A Manufactured Rejection
FOR decades, the agitation for Anioma State stood as one of Nigeria’s oldest and most consistent quests for political, cultural and administrative justice. So when Senator Ned Nwoko tabled a Bill for its creation, the enthusiasm across Delta North was unsurprising. What shocked many, however, was the sudden political pushback—not from external forces, but from leaders who once openly championed an Anioma identity firmly rooted in the Igbo heritage.
The controversy deepened after a press statement signed by three House of Representatives members, nine state lawmakers and nine local government chairpersons endorsed Anioma State but rejected zoning it to the South East. This contradictory position—widely believed to reflect the influence of former Delta governor, Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa—has stirred intense scrutiny. How does a bloc reject the very geopolitical alignment that restores the identity denied them since 1946?
Historical records show how British colonial cartography forced Igbo-speaking communities of Delta North into the Western Region, disregarding cultural and linguistic realities. The Willink Commission of 1957 and the eventual creation of the Midwestern Region in 1963 partially corrected these distortions. Yet the core aspiration of the Anioma people—political belonging consistent with their Igbo identity—remains unresolved.
Ironically, before the 2023 elections, Okowa publicly affirmed on national television that he is Igbo, seemingly validating the arguments of those seeking Anioma’s alignment with the South East. President Bola Tinubu’s recent push to create one additional state to balance the geopolitical deficit further positions Anioma as the most logical candidate.
Against this backdrop, the resistance led by local political actors appears less like strategic caution and more like a power play. Critics accuse them of personal ambition masquerading as regional protectionism—an attempt to preserve existing political structures even if it means distorting history.
What remains clear is that Anioma’s fate will ultimately rest with the people, not political gatekeepers. Like the decisive referendum of July 13, 1963 that birthed the Midwestern Region, the Anioma question will return to the ballot of history. And when that moment comes, the people must choose between inherited distortions and long-denied self-definition.
