There comes a point in public life when continued resistance ceases to be strategy and becomes injury, injury to justice, to trust, and to the credibility of leadership itself. The question of Anioma State creation has reached that point. What the moment demands is not further contestation, quiet obstruction, but restraint and cooperation. It demands wisdom. It demands that political leaders sheath their swords and allow a lawful, constitutional process to run its course. Let Anioma State creation be.
The aspiration for Anioma State is not an act of aggression against any people or institution. It is not a challenge to political leaders in the existing Delta state, nor an attempt to dispossess or diminish the authority of anyone. It is a peaceful, historically grounded, and constitutionally legitimate quest by a culturally coherent people who have consistently chosen dialogue over disruption and process over provocation.
For decades, Anioma communities have pursued this objective through memoranda, consultations, legislative engagement, and alliance-building within Nigeria’s democratic framework. They have not threatened violence. They have not undermined institutions. They have not sought shortcuts. Such political maturity is not a danger to the political dynasty of anyone; it is one of its greatest assets.
Those who continue, openly or discreetly, to oppose Anioma State creation must now reckon with a deeper question of statesmanship: what concrete injustice is being prevented by denying a people their own state after years of lawful, sustained advocacy? Political convenience is not a moral argument. Administrative familiarity is not a principle of justice. Historical arrangements, however long-standing, are not immutable when they no longer serve equity or efficiency.
Nigeria’s own evolution offers an instructive precedent. The federation has grown and adjusted repeatedly, not to weaken national unity, but to strengthen it. State creation has consistently served as a tool for reducing friction, improving representation, bringing governance closer to the people, and expanding political opportunity. Anioma State would simply extend this logic. It would erase no identity, threaten no culture, and cripple no existing state. It would instead correct a long-recognized imbalance.
Beyond justice, there are tangible benefits for all stakeholders, especially political leaders, who allow this process to proceed unhindered.
First, Anioma State creation would ease administrative and political pressures within Delta State, allowing for more focused governance, clearer development priorities, and reduced intra-state competition for resources and representation.
Second, it would create new political and economic opportunities: new institutions, expanded leadership spaces, increased federal presence, infrastructure development, and employment. These are dividends not only for Anioma people, but for surrounding regions and the national economy.
Third, it would strengthen national cohesion by demonstrating that Nigeria remains responsive to peaceful, constitutional demands. At a time when the federation is tested by agitation and distrust, granting a legitimate request pursued responsibly sends a powerful signal: that moderation is rewarded, not punished by its own people.
Fourth, for political leaders themselves, enabling Anioma State creation is an investment in legacy. History distinguishes between those who obstruct change to preserve comfort and those who guide it to preserve stability. The latter are remembered as nation-builders.
Opposition often justified with whatever name must be examined honestly. Nothing is not sustained by unwarranted resistance. It is sustained by fairness and justice. The greater risk to cohesion lies not in allowing Anioma State creation, but in continued resistance to a widely supported aspiration pursued through lawful means.
This appeal is therefore directed to political leaders, influential elites, traditional authorities, and institutional gatekeepers who wield political power or assert influence over a lot of people. If the constitutional steps are followed, if a referendum reflects the will of the people, and if the National Assembly gives its approval, then continued opposition is no longer principled, it becomes indefensible.
In all, Anioma people are asking only that the process be allowed to conclude without bad-faith interference from whoever.
This is the moment to sheath your swords, not in surrender, but in wisdom. Let Anioma State creation be, for peace, for development, for inclusion, and for the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic promise. Let it be so that governance may come closer to the people. Let it be so that patience, responsibility, and faith in the system are vindicated. Let it be so that Anioma, having waited long and acted well, may finally take its rightful place within the federation on equal footing.
Let Anioma State creation be.
