The creation of the new Midwestern Region out of Western Nigeria did not of course calm down the crisis in the Region. On the contrary, its intensification led directly to the bloody coup d’ etat of January 1966 and eventually to civil war. On the eve of that Civil War between secessionist Eastern Nigeria and the rest of the country, General Yakubu Gowon’s Central Government took extra-constitutional measures to create a total of twelve states in the Federation, thus satisfying the agitation of disadvantaged minorities for their own states. It was at this point that the awkward terminology of Regions, of colonial vintage, was dropped in deference to its current term of states. That exercise of states creation carefully balanced the interests of Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria, creating six states in each of these historically distinct areas.

Yakubu Gowon’s creation of twelve states in 1967 could be seen as a war-time stroke of preemptive diplomacy that probably helped Nigeria to defeat secession. He was cautious not to turn it into a popular exercise to be repeated. However, the two men who drove General Gowon from office were not so careful. Murtala Muhammed and Olusegun Obasanjo were in a hurry in 1975 to create more states. They and the cohort of their successors of military dictators have by now created a total of thirty-six states by unchallenged acts of military decrees. In these later exercises of states creation, economic viability of the states has disappeared as a central criterion to be wieghed. For instance, some of the states that have been created in these waves of states creation are among the least economically productive areas of the Sahel region of West Africa. Even so, there are current political pressures to split many of Nigeria’s economically unviable states into even smaller units. This is because there is no strict requirement that Nigeria’s constituent states should be economically viable. It is enough for the states to await allocation from the Federation account and the Central Government at Abuja to survive. The unwritten formula that equal numbers of states should be created for the North and the South in any exercise of states creation does mean that states with marginal resources will continue to emerge in what appears to be an unending agenda of adding more states by splitting existing ones. Not surprisingly, civilian successors to military rulers seem to believe that they must create their own share of states, as the ongoing campaigns for states creation demonstrate.

Excerp from: Military Rule and Damage to the Spirit of the Nigerian Constitution
By Peter Ekeh

As much as I am always cynical about late Lt Col. Aguiyi Ironsi's "Decree 54" that started the systematic fracturing and cannibalizing of the Nigerian federating region into states,I however have to admit that even the regional governments we operated in those days were already becoming unstable and would likely have collapsed; calls for the autonomy of minority tribes within the regions had began to germinate,in truth,if regional federalism were to still be in operation,there'd probably be widespread aggressive agitation by minority tribes for independence from the regions today.
After perusing our political history,I realized that the regions were structured upon the concept of tribal majority,this would have led to conflict within the regions with time.As it was,elections within the regions and even at federal level was fraught with crisis and discontent,there were even cases where a whole region boycotted federal election.
If the aim was to keep Nigeria one,then regionalism wouldnt have worked anyway.

EVarn:
As much as I am always cynical about late Lt Col. Aguiyi Ironsi's "Decree 54" that started the systematic fracturing and cannibalizing of the Nigerian federating region into states,I however have to admit that even the regional governments we operated in those days were already becoming unstable and would likely have collapsed; calls for the autonomy of minority tribes within the regions had began to germinate,in truth,if regional federalism were to still be in operation,there'd probably be widespread aggressive agitation by minority tribes for independence from the regions today.
After perusing our political history,I realized that the regions were structured upon the concept of tribal majority,this would have led to conflict within the regions with time.As it was,elections within the regions and even at federal level was fraught with crisis and discontent,there were even cases where a whole region boycotted federal election.
If the aim was to keep Nigeria one,then regionalism wouldnt have worked anyway.

Of course that's correct assessment. There's a reason 12 turned into 36. If you look at old regions as well the were fracturing. The main pattern I saw was the government instead of enforcin rule of law opted for more etho-states for every minory tribe including my own. Everyone knew these states wouldn't be viable considering tax base.

It wasn't stable then and wouldnt be now. I post this to show how foolish millitary government was then. Most if issues you see today with over centralized government is direct result of their actions. This includes from police force, Local government, non viable states for political expediency.

P.S I left a bit of the history out from the Mid Western Crisis. They eventual split it then civil war followed later.

The campaign by disadvantaged minority ethnic groups for creating more Regions out of the existing three Regions of the North, West, and East grew loud and serious in the decolonization decade of the 1950s (see Arikpo 1967). The fears of the minorities and their demand for equity were the principal rationale for the establishment of the Willink Commission at the London Constitutional Conference of 1957. The Commission canvassed views throughout Nigeria in an exercise that has remained a major example of how carefully and how seriously national constitutional matters should be weighed. In the end the Willink Commission declined to recommend the splitting up of any of the Regions, offering instead other options for allaying the fears of the minorities. One principal reason for this outcome was the opposition of each of the Regions against losing any portions of its territory. These Regions were fearful of losing economic resources at a time when they had to rely on their own productive powers for their survival and prosperity.

Blue3k:

Of course that's correct assessment. There's a reason 12 turned into 36. If you look at old regions as well the were fracturing. The main pattern I saw was the government instead of enforcin rule of law opted for more etho-states for every minory tribe including my own. Everyone knew these states wouldn't be viable considering tax base.
It wasn't stable then and wouldnt be now. I post this to show how foolish millitary government was then. Most if issues you see today with over centralized government is direct result of their actions. This includes from police force, Local government, non viable states for political expediency.
P.S I left a bit of the history out from the Mid Western Crisis. They eventual split it then civil war followed later.

It is true that the military governments were unwise for putting Nigeria on the table and ignorantly hacking it into ethnic pieces of states that were not truly viable.
But we can still remedy it by fiscal federalism.