Daniel’s Ijebu-Remo State Bid: Group Defends Senator Against Claims of Deception
A group writing from Ijebu Ode has defended former Ogun State Governor and Senator Otunba Gbenga Daniel over his efforts to facilitate the creation of Ijebu-Remo State.
The group, in a response to an article by Kunle Adesanya, argued that the publication misrepresented Nigeria’s constitutional process for creating new states and wrongly portrayed Daniel’s legislative efforts as deceptive.
According to the group, Daniel has never claimed that he could create a state single-handedly, noting that Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution provides for a multi-stage process involving the National Assembly, state assemblies and the affected communities.
The group said Daniel’s role as sponsor of Senate Bill 564, which was introduced on November 27, 2024, is to initiate and drive the legislative process.
It said the senator had secured support from lawmakers across political lines, with 75 senators reportedly backing the proposal as of July 2026.
The group also cited consultations with traditional rulers and stakeholders across Ijebu and Remo communities as part of efforts to build consensus for the proposed state.
It further explained that the proposed name was changed from Ijebu State to Ijebu-Remo State following concerns raised by Remo stakeholders, describing the adjustment as an effort to accommodate the identity of both communities.
Palace Endorsements Not a Substitute for Referendum
The group also rejected criticism of meetings between Daniel and traditional institutions, saying such engagements were not being presented as replacements for the constitutionally required referendum.
It maintained that consultations with traditional councils, local government representatives, community leaders and other stakeholders are intended to establish broad support before the proposal advances to subsequent constitutional stages.
According to the group, the September 28, 2026 meeting at the palace of the Awujale, where Ijebu-Ode was endorsed as the proposed capital, should be viewed as part of the ongoing stakeholder consultations.
It argued that such endorsements are intended to demonstrate popular support and facilitate the next stages of the state creation process.
Group Outlines Constitutional Process
The group said the roadmap for the proposed Ijebu-Remo State has been publicly discussed, beginning with legislative sponsorship and progressing through various stages of constitutional approval.
It listed the stages as legislative sponsorship, securing support in the National Assembly, consultations with state and local stakeholders, a referendum to be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) when required, and eventual approval by the required number of state Houses of Assembly before final consideration by the National Assembly and presidential assent.
The group also argued that the Ijebu-Remo proposal should not be singled out for failing to have reached the referendum stage, noting that other state-creation proposals before the 10th National Assembly are also yet to reach that stage.
Name Change Described as Consensus Building
On the change in the proposed state’s name, the group described the evolution from Ijebu State to Ijebu-Remo State as evidence of stakeholder engagement rather than inconsistency.
It said concerns raised by Remo stakeholders over identity and the proposed capital were taken into consideration, resulting in a compromise intended to accommodate both Ijebu and Remo interests.
The group maintained that such consensus-building would be necessary to secure the level of support required at subsequent stages of the constitutional process.
In conclusion, the group said Daniel’s efforts had moved the agitation for state creation from public demands to formal legislative consideration.
It cited the reported support of 75 senators, the July 4, 2025 public hearing and consultations involving traditional rulers as milestones in the campaign for the proposed state.
The group, identified as ZMO and writing from Ijebu Ode, urged critics to assess the proposal based on the constitutional process and documented legislative activities rather than political interpretations.