President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Thursday welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirming the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the statutory rights of local governments.
According to the president, “By virtue of this judgement, our people – especially the poor – will be able to hold their local leaders to account for their actions and inactions. What is sent to local government accounts will be known, and services must now be provided without excuses”.
President Tinubu, according to a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale, noted that one of the fundamental challenges to the nation’s advancement over the years has been ineffective “local government administration”, as governance at that level “is nearly absent”.
Re-echoing his relief over the apex court’s verdict of yesterday, the president emphasised that the onus is now on local council leaders to ensure that the broad spectrum of Nigerians living at the local government level are satisfied that they are benefitting from people-oriented service delivery.
“My administration instituted this suit because of our unwavering belief that our people must have relief and today’s (yesterday’s) judgement will ensure that it will be only those local officials elected by the people that will control the resources of the people.
“This judgement stands as a resounding affirmation that we can use legitimate means of redress to restructure our country and restructure our economy to make Nigeria a better place to live in and a fairer society for all of our people,” he stated.
President Tinubu noted that the provision of some essential amenities and public goods, such as the construction and maintenance of certain roads, streets, street lighting, drains, parks, gardens, open spaces, and other residual responsibilities, including community security, “has tottered owing to the emasculation of local governments”.
The president therefore affirmed that the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional rights and ideals of local governments as regards financial autonomy, and other salient principles, is of historic significance and further reinforces the effort to enhance Nigeria’s true federal fabric for the development of the entire nation.
He commended the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for his diligence and patriotic effort on this important assignment.
In a judgment delivered yesterday by Justice Emmanuel Agim, on behalf of the seven-member panel, the court directed the Accountant General of the Federation to pay local government allocations directly to their accounts. It declared non-remittance of funds by some states to local governments as unconstitutional.
The ruling also nullified the appointment of caretaker chairmen while mandating direct crediting of local government allocations from the federation account.
The seven-member panel barred governors from dissolving elected local government chairmen and replacing them with caretaker committees. Funds to non-elected committees will be withheld.
The 36 state governors, represented by their attorneys general, had challenged the federal government’s action based on Section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides for a joint account for local government allocations.
However, the court dismissed this objection, emphasising that the constitutional provision should not be abused by state governors.
Meanwhile, Nigerians across different spectrum also reacted positively to the apex court’s judgement yesterday.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Habeeb Abiru noted that while financial autonomy for local governments is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is not the court’s role to intervene if a local government and state government agree on fund management.
Also amend Constitution for INEC to conduct LG polls – Ex-Gov Ngilari
A former of Adamawa State, Bala James Ngilari, while commending the Tinubu administration for going to court to secure freedom for the local government areas, however, advised that the federal government should work further towards Constitution amendment to move powers of conducting elections into LGAs to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), instead of State Independent National Electoral Commissions (SIECS).
“There is a reasonable possibility that people will win election based on their popularity if the election is conducted by INEC,” Ngilari said.
“The way it is now, even though the Supreme Court has given financial autonomy to LGAs, governors will continue to control their resources by ensuring that only their preferred candidates win election through the SIECs,” he said.
Speaking in the same vein, a former Deputy Governor of Benue State, Chief Stephen Lawani, said the ruling would require additional measures to make local governments functional and relevant.
Lawani also agreed that the conduct of elections into local councils should be taken away SIECS and given to INEC. He added that holding local government elections simultaneously with other political office elections would ensure the autonomy and relevance of local governments.
All institutions must be respected – Prof. Yadudu
Renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, praised the ruling as a progressive interpretation of the constitutional provision for local government autonomy.
When asked if the decision would make a significant difference in how state governments treat local governments, Yadudu expressed optimism. He said: “I anticipate that it should. All institutions should be respected and obviously it will require some adjustments here and there.”
He emphasized that the ruling should be seen as an interpretation given in the best circumstances, not as a contradiction to Section 162(6)(7)&(8) of the Constitution, which provides for the state to maintain a joint account with the local government for the receipt of allocations.
He said: “Just like one of the justices said, it’s a progressive way of looking at the ruling. Look at it this way, there is a stipulation that the state shall maintain a joint account, but the state never puts any money from its own purse. So, you can’t say it should maintain a joint account when you yourself don’t respect it.”
Professor Yadudu emphasized that the ruling aligns with Section 7 of the Constitution, which requires a democratically elected system of government at the local level. He noted that the decision mandates the federal government and its agencies to deal with democratically elected local governments, not caretaker committees. This interpretation, according to Yadudu, goes beyond financial autonomy, addressing broader governance issues.
He highlighted the need for state laws to conform to the ruling of the Supreme Court. He also acknowledged the possibility that governors might try to circumvent the ruling but hoped that the explicit nature of the decision would prevent such actions.
On whether the Supreme Court’s decision addressed the operational challenges of the local government system, which some argue require constitutional amendments, Professor Yadudu said: “The interpretation rule to bring clarity to the relationship between the states and local government is preferable; meaning that the Supreme Court has interpreted both sections and in light of its understanding of the prevailing circumstances, feels that this is the way to go.”
He said that rather than amending the constitution, the focus should be on compliance with the ruling and the development of state laws in alignment with it.
However, E.M.D. Umukoro, Esq. said that the Supreme Court has engaged in judicial legislation. He stated that the intention of the constitution in Section 162(5) regarding the joint account was for both the state and local government to contribute to the account and for its expenditure to be decided by state laws.
He suggested that state governments might need to return to the Supreme Court for clarification if they believe the court has overstepped its role in interpreting the law.