SHOULD STATE OF ORIGIN BE REPLACED WITH STATE OF RESIDENCE

I can still recall two years ago, when as a year two undergraduate in the university, I and my friend while lounging around came across a beautifully designed poster announcing bursary payments for students’  from Rivers State. The look we both exchanged at that moment was a knowing one; one only both of us could understand. Only two days ago, we had seen a chipboard around the hostel area announcing a 150,000 naira NDDC fund for students from the Niger Delta, and only less than a week before that, we had seen a recent scholarship worth 200,000 naira being awarded to science students from the Niger Delta only.

My friend was the first to speak up that day ‘This is not fair’ was his honest comment. ‘I will go and do change of state to a Niger Delta state. After all, I’m even Niger Delta because my aunt’s husband is from Bayelsa State; and you too can do the same. After all you’ve stayed all your life in Port Harcourt’. Standing quietly and looking at his forlorn countenance, I was at a loss for words. Was it indeed fair play?

‘Stateof origin’ has always been a necessary ingredient for identification on most campuses, even becoming almost as important as the WAEC and JAMB results in fresh student’s clearance. In some institutions, the state of origin certificate is also demanded as part of necessary documents for completion of the admission process. Even more importantly, state of origin has been the basis of bursaries and many scholarships awarded. Hence, ‘state of origin’ has gained popularity among students to be either a plus or minus ticket.

The debate as to whether State of Residence should replace State of origin is one point of view that will suit some people while it will certainly infuriate others. It is of course no news that Nigeria as a country has an unequal distribution of resources and by inference, an unequal distribution of wealth. This unequal distribution has benefited some states while leaving others to grapple in order to even pay their bursaries. Some other states, however, without natural resources but with a large reserve of IGR are also very attractive as states of origin.

State of Residence, simply put, is the state where someone lives or resides whether permanently or for a relatively long period, though temporarily. The definition of the term in itself creates a huge problem that may arise, should there be replacement of state of origin with state of residence. From an objective point of view, I will analyze the strong and low points of maintaining the ‘state of origin’ status quo and making the change, and then, establish my own distinct voice

Foremost, maintaining the status quo of ‘state of origin’ will prevent confusion to a large extent. This is because, while people cannot change their state of origin, one’s state of residence could always change due to one thing or the other. It is not at all near impossible for a Nigerian to reside in the six geo-political zones throughout his lifetime. Again, since man is an agent of migration, always seeking greener pastures, movement from one part of the country to reside is not new.

If, however, state of residence should replace state of origin, with the benefits that will accrue residents in certain states, it simply becomes easy to be a benefactor of such benefits by simply packing up luggage and moving. Soon, everyone begins to move and it leads to overpopulation and overcrowding in one part of the country, hence, we begin to see various ripple effects like vices, and airborne diseases. Apart from that, with people moving anyhow in order to acquire state of residence benefits, it becomes a herculean task for the government to actually keep data on these persons with regards their state.

Taking a view from the other side now, should state of origin be replaced with state of residence, it would afford those who are not from oil-producing or resourcefully endowed states to benefit. Hence, it may not avail anyone to say that he was not given a chance at a scholarship for residents of a particular state, because, then people will simply ask ‘Can’t you move?’ On the other hand anyway, it could go to deprive the actual ‘sons of the soil’ of that state from being properly taken care of.

Again, proper census records will be made possible if upon birth, a child’s name is entered into the registry of his state of origin rather than his state of residence which may change in the next ten or fifteen years.

In my own distinct opinion, with the constantly increasing need for migration and the incessant change of residence, even within states, replacing state of origin with state of residence will be like striking the firewood with the back of the axe. It will create more problems than solutions. The government should only do its best to ensure that no state is disadvantaged in any way when it comes to wealth distribution. With that, the status quo works just fine.

*This piece was written by me