By Magnus Onyibe
Now that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has ruled on the highly sensitive and contentious local government autonomy issue, what is next is that folks who would ordinarily not vie to become Local Government Area, LGA chairman (simply because the role was essentially a Special Assistant, S.A to the governor position equivalent) which is beneath them, would now be keen to do so as the role has become independent of the state governors as it has been freed from their claws.

Further to that, the judgment might even inspire those who had aspired to be governors who may not be able to get elected because of the stiff competition for the plum job, to jostle for the less competitive LGA chairmanship position.

That is because given that it is only one man that can become governor in a context and at a period in time, the plethora of contestants who fail to clinch the coveted political trophy (and resort to desperately slugging it out in court) may consider settling for the role of LGA chairmanship positions because of the autonomy that the Supreme Court judgment has conferred on that tier of government.

To put things in context, while there are just 36 states in our country, there are 774 LGAs nationwide.

So, instead of the limited opportunities to become chief executives of governments at the sub-national level which is a mere 36 slots, imagine the opportunity that has just been opened for a huge number of 774 well-skilled people, instead of a handful of stooges of governors without the right competencies getting into the political fray of governance at the grassroots level?

In light of the above possibilities, suffice it to state that the LGA autonomy ruling by the Supreme Court has the potential to ramp up development in the rural areas which is a situation that has been in very short supply owing to a dearth of leaders with the ability and capacity to lead at the grassroots level of government.

The judgment which had been reserved since Thursday, June 12 was finally presented on Thursday, July 11, 2024 ( which is roughly one month after) to the relief of the politicians, particularly governors who have been in anxiety.

The ruling without ambiguity made it clear that LGAs are autonomous and must be treated as such, going forward.

As the Supreme Court has ruled that   
LGAs are independent of state governments in the manner that the sub-nationals (states) are insulated from undue interference from the FGN, reaffirming a three-layer government structural framework, is the coast now clear for a paradigm shift in rural-urban migration?

Put succinctly, would those in the rural areas, going forward have the incentives to remain there than keep moving in droves to the cities (as has been the case) where prospects for work and business are currently higher and abound?

Clearly, with 20.60 per cent of the Federation Account (FAAC Account) going directly into the coffers of LGAs (as opposed to being passed through state governments), there would be more opportunities to entice more Nigerians to live and thrive in the hinterland as the economic activities outside the state capitals would boom as more funds is pumped into LGA headquarters.

In other words, as more money flows into the local governments’ treasuries directly, the chances of folks remaining there would be higher as the prospects of living and working there become more alluring since the development of social infrastructure and basic amenities in the rural areas which are currently in a decrepit condition, where they exist at all and lacking in some LGAs, would be accelerated.

The answer to the earlier question posed on whether rural-urban migration would be stemmed by the Supreme Court ruling decoupling LGAs from the apron strings of state governments appears cynical, but it is germane to achieving the quest for balanced growth of both the rural and urban centers for our country to evolve into a robust and sustainable manner such that our democracy would be secured, the future of our country guaranteed.

In my column of July 2, 2024, which is about two (2) weeks ago, the focus of my article titled “How President Tinubu Is Restructuring Nigeria Silently” is on the fact that suing governors to court to secure autonomy for LGAs is part of President Bola Tinubu’s way of restructuring Nigeria without all the hullabaloo associated with the previous attempts to restructure Nigeria which is quite innovative and commendable.

One of the unique things about this restructuring is that it is being done by peeling off the bottlenecks in the current structure layer by layer like peeling off layers of a ball of onion which comprises multiple layers wrapped upon one another.

That is as opposed to trying to restructure the country in one fell swoop which is an approach or methodology that failed in the past-in 2004/5 when then military head of state Gen. Sani Abacha organised a national conference on the reformation of our country which was inconclusive and unimplemented following his sudden death, and especially in 2014 when then president Goodluck Jonathan after succeeding in organising a National Conference, was hamstrung to roll out the policy changes agreed upon by the delegates.

That is ostensibly because, then president Jonathan had self-inflicted the unforced error of delaying implementation of the Confab report either because he was relying on the false hope that he had performed well enough to be voted back into office as president or his party but got disappointed or betrayed by those who had imbued him with the dutch courage about his re-election in 2015 being a done deal.

Now, as lofty and popular as the ruling by the Supreme Court affirming the autonomy of LGAs appears to be, some oppose it vehemently.

First to do so is former governor of Delta state Chief James Onanefe lbori, a former governor of Delta state in a statement released immediately after the judgment premised his concern on the following legal grounds:

“I’m opposed to fiddling with the allocations to the Joint LG Accounts at the state level but that in itself does not call for this death knell to the clear provisions of section 162 of the constitution. The implications of the ruling are far-reaching and the issues that readily come to mind are:

Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.

Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralises more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.

State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a federal system.

Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this as a tool for political leverage.

Precedent Setting: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralized system of government over time.”

Obviously, miffed and disappointed Chief lbori concluded his objection by stating that while he denounces the fiddling with LGA funds by some  governors with sticky fingers, paying LGAs allocation to them directly is not the ideal solution.  He then referenced the wise counsel of late Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa JSC who once offered the following description of the Supreme Court “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

To be continued tomorrow.