By Otunba (Dr) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
Discussion about creating a new state from the old Ijebu Province area of Ogun State should begin from a straightforward proposition: the new state should be named **Ijebu State**, and its capital should be **Ijebu-Ode**. That case does not have to belittle Remo, ignore Sagamu, or suggest that any one community owns the project politically. A stronger basis exists historical continuity, administrative clarity, and a binding commitment to fairness.
The most persuasive argument is not that history gives one community the right to dominate another. It is that a new state should possess a coherent identity, while its institutions secure an equal stake for every constituent community.
A name grounded in history
Ijebu is not a term coined for the current constitutional review process. Long before colonial rule, the Ijebu kingdom existed as a distinct polity under the Awujale, with Ijebu-Ode serving as its political and spiritual centre. Portuguese records from as early as 1508 referred to a “great city” called Geebu (or similar variants), ruled by an Agusale (Awujale). The kingdom controlled major trade routes linking the hinterland and the coast, and its territory was defined by the formidable earthworks known as **Sungbo’s Eredo** a vast network of banks and ditches stretching about 160 kilometres, among the largest ancient monuments in Africa. Associated with political consolidation and defence, these works point to a sophisticated and organised society long before European contact.
That order was disrupted by the British conquest in 1892. The expedition that culminated in the Battle of Imagbon ended Ijebu independence; the capital was occupied, and the traditional order was subordinated. Colonial restructuring then changed territorial boundaries: parts of the lagoon fringe were detached, and by the early 1920s the area had been constituted as **Ijebu Province** within the Western Provinces of Nigeria, with **Ijebu-Ode** as its headquarters. Both the Ijebu and Remo divisions fell within that province.
That colonial province later became a major pillar of the modern case for statehood. Among the roughly two dozen provinces that shaped colonial administration in the interwar and postwar years, advocates repeatedly point to Ijebu as the one whose distinct administrative identity was not subsequently converted into a separate state. Oyo, Sokoto, Kano and others were subdivided or elevated; Ijebu, by contrast, was merged in 1976.
That record gives the name **Ijebu State** a defensible foundation. It ties the proposed state to a recognisable political inheritance instead of presenting it as an entirely new creation. Even so, supporters should avoid trying to bolster the case with doubtful arithmetic about the precise number of former provinces or with claims that “every other province became a state.” The argument does not depend on unverifiable slogans. Its real force comes from the continuity of Ijebu identity from the precolonial kingdom to the colonial province and into the present agitation and from the practical advantages of the proposed state.
Preserve the identity of the demand
The contemporary campaign also has its own history. Organised agitation for a separate **Ijebu State** gained momentum during the 1975–76 state-creation exercises. When **Ogun State** was created on **3 February 1976** through the merger of the former Abeokuta and Ijebu Provinces, with Abeokuta as capital, the specific aspiration of the old Ijebu Province remained unrealised. Decades afterward, the **2014 National Conference** recommended the creation of **Ijebu State** as one of 18 proposed new states, listing it alongside others such as **New Oyo** and **Anioma**. That recommendation did not itself create the state, but it provided an important national reference point under the name **Ijebu State**.
The demand returned to the legislative arena in **November 2024** through **Senator Gbenga Daniel’s** constitutional alteration bill for the creation of **Ijebu State**. Related efforts in the **House of Representatives** have also moved forward. Names carry institutional memory, and keeping the name **Ijebu State** maintains a direct link among the historical claim, the conference recommendation, and the renewed legislative push.
This is not to say that another name would be illegitimate. It means, rather, that replacing an already established name should require a compelling public justification, not merely an assumption that a compound name would automatically settle deeper concerns about power and recognition.
Why Ijebu-Ode should be the capital
The argument for **Ijebu-Ode** follows the same logic of continuity. It was the historic seat of the Awujale and the centre of the precolonial Ijebu political order. It later became the headquarters of the colonial **Ijebu Province**. Its claim, therefore, is more than a preference for a familiar town; it provides a direct connection between the proposed state and the historical identity invoked to justify its creation.
A capital is not a prize. It is the seat of institutions created to serve the whole state. Choosing **Ijebu-Ode** should therefore mean locating the seat of government there, not clustering every public investment, appointment, or opportunity within it. Nor should supporters mistake historical significance for automatic proof of present-day administrative readiness. Before implementation, the proposed capital ought to undergo a transparent assessment of land availability, infrastructure, transport access, environmental constraints, and the cost of government facilities. History provides the rationale for the choice. Sound planning must provide the means.
Remo needs guarantees, not reassurance alone
The concerns coming from **Remo** deserve serious attention. In early **2025**, its state-creation committee proposed **“Remo-Ijebu State,”** with **Sagamu** as capital. Earlier harmonisation meetings at the palaces of the **Awujale** and the **Akarigbo** had already identified the name, capital, and local-government configuration as issues requiring agreement. Those proposals show that agreeing on state creation is not the same as agreeing on the character of the state to be created. Treating those differences as mere obstruction would only weaken the campaign.
The proper response is an explicit founding compact centred on inclusion. It should acknowledge Remo’s distinct identity, including its own historical evolution within the broader **Ijebu Province** framework after **1894**; guarantee equitable access to public appointments; spread major institutions across the proposed state; and require transparent regional reporting of development expenditure. **Sagamu** and other Remo communities should be major beneficiaries of state creation, not bystanders watching development occur elsewhere. Those commitments should be measurable and open to public scrutiny, not left as assurances offered simply to secure consent.
Neither the name of a state nor the location of its capital can replace fair government. At the same time, neither should stand in its way.
Turn a historical claim into a shared project
The constitutional process under **Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)** requires more than enthusiasm or a successful legislative reading. It demands substantial representative support within the affected area, a referendum, and further legislative approvals at both state and federal levels. A divided campaign therefore has not only a political problem, but a practical one as well.
The challenge is to build an agreement strong enough to survive those tests. **Ijebu State**, with its capital in **Ijebu-Ode**, offers a coherent historical foundation for such an agreement one that runs from the precolonial kingdom and **Sungbo’s Eredo**, through the colonial province, the unfulfilled aspirations of **1976**, the **2014 Conference** recommendation, and the current bills before the **National Assembly**. But those who advocate that position must defend fairness as firmly as they defend the name. The name should preserve a history. The capital should host a government. The government must serve every community.
**Signed by**
**Otunba (Dr) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo**
**Convener**
**Ijebu Lokan fun itesiwaju Ijebu Movement**
