State Creation & Power: How Murtala’s 1976 Gamble Rewired Nigeria

A Nation in Need of Reset

IN February 1976, Nigeria was not merely undergoing administrative reform; it was being reimagined. General Murtala Ramat Mohammed, barely six months into power, redrew the country’s political map with a decisiveness that has rarely been matched since. Seven new states were created, Abuja was designated as the Federal Capital Territory, and existing structures were reorganised to weaken old regional monopolies. Within weeks, Murtala would be assassinated, freezing his image as a leader in a hurry. Half a century later, Nigeria still lives inside the boundaries he created.

The question today is no longer whether Murtala’s actions were bold—they unquestionably were—but whether they delivered the inclusive, stable federation he envisioned, and why the debates he sought to settle remain unresolved.

Why Murtala Acted When He Did

Murtala Mohammed inherited a country scarred by civil war, weighed down by centralised military authority, and haunted by unresolved questions of belonging. To him, unity enforced from Abuja—or from the old regional capitals—was brittle. Nigeria’s problem was not too much diversity, but too few centres of power.

The large regions that dominated pre-war Nigeria had reproduced inequality under new names. Minorities remained politically marginal, and the federal centre had grown into a cumbersome arbiter of conflicts it often helped create. For Murtala, state creation was not about multiplying bureaucracy; it was about restoring legitimacy.

Political historian Prof. Max Siollun has described the move as “military pragmatism rather than ideology.” Murtala wanted control, but he also wanted reassurance—especially for minorities who feared that post-war Nigeria would entrench their exclusion.

February 1976: Redrawing the Federation

On 3 February 1976, Nigeria’s map was redrawn. Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Imo, Niger, Ogun, and Ondo states were formally created, bringing the total number of states to 19. Abuja was carved out as a neutral federal capital. Existing administrative units were also reorganised, producing Oyo and Anambra states from earlier formations.

Arguments persist over whether the exercise amounted to seven or nine new states, but that technical debate misses the deeper truth: Nigeria’s internal balance of power was fundamentally altered. The old regional order was decisively broken, and decentralisation became the organising principle of governance.

Belonging as a Political Strategy

For Murtala, state creation was an act of recognition. People needed to see themselves in the structure of government, not merely in rhetoric. Smaller states were meant to bring administration closer to the people, reduce ethnic domination, and create new leadership spaces.

Prof. Jibrin Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development argues that the real objective was legitimacy. “Murtala was responding to a crisis of trust,” he notes. “He wanted Nigerians to feel seen again.”

That logic worked—at least initially. Across the country, newly created states generated enthusiasm, political participation, and a sense of ownership over governance.

Southern Outcomes: Opportunity and Uneven Growth

In the South-West, the breakup of the old Western State transformed the region’s political economy. Ogun State, long overshadowed by Ibadan and Lagos, used its new autonomy to leverage proximity to Nigeria’s commercial capital. Industrial corridors, logistics hubs, and manufacturing clusters followed, validating the decentralisation argument.

Ondo State gained visibility and autonomy but struggled to convert its natural resources into sustained prosperity, underscoring a recurring lesson: statehood creates opportunity, not automatic development.

Oyo State emerged as a cultural and political anchor, preserving Ibadan’s prominence in education, media, and national politics, even as economic diversification lagged.

In the South-East, Imo and Anambra states carried immense symbolic weight. State creation reassured a region still healing from war that reintegration was genuine. Anambra, in particular, exceeded expectations, becoming one of Nigeria’s most commercially dynamic states.

Former External Affairs Minister Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi once argued that symbolism mattered more than efficiency in the immediate post-war period. On that score, Murtala’s reforms delivered.

Northern and Middle Belt Realities

In the North and Middle Belt, outcomes were shaped by geography, insecurity, and federal policy constraints. Benue State emerged as Nigeria’s food basket, yet farmer-herder conflicts and weak agro-processing infrastructure limited its economic potential.

Bauchi State remained agriculturally significant but heavily dependent on federal allocations, reflecting a broader northern dilemma of abundant land and limited industrialisation.

Borno State’s trajectory has been the most tragic and consequential. Created as a strategic border state, it later became the epicentre of insurgency. Yet even amid devastation, its national relevance has grown, placing it at the heart of Nigeria’s security calculus.

Abuja: The Most Enduring Idea

Abuja stands as Murtala Mohammed’s most disciplined reform. Conceived as a neutral capital free from ethnic ownership, it succeeded politically, becoming a meeting point for Nigeria’s diversity.

Economically, Abuja reshaped migration patterns and power relations, even as it inherited Nigeria’s inequalities and planning failures. Still, it remains proof that institutional imagination can outlive its architect.

Fifty Years On: The Unfinished Work

Murtala Mohammed did not believe in perfect systems. He believed in necessary interventions. The states he created expanded political participation and diversified leadership, but they also entrenched fiscal dependence and administrative multiplication without productivity.

As lawyer Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has noted, Murtala was not trying to solve Nigeria forever—only to prevent it from breaking apart in his time.

Fifty years later, Nigeria still wrestles with the same questions of decentralisation, security, and inclusion. The map was redrawn. The urgency he demanded, however, remains elusive.