The Supreme Court ruling, which the other day granted financial autonomy to local government administration in the country, is a bold attempt at enshrining the councils as a strong, third arm of government, meant to impact directly and effectively to citizens at the grassroots.
[ad]
Considering the age-old clamour for enthronement of true federalism; and the gradual subjugation of local governments by state authorities, it is not surprising that many Nigerians have welcomed the judicial decision. Given, however, the controversy that has been generated for years over the true meaning of true federalism in the country, it is equally not surprising that many other Nigerians have voiced their displeasure over the ruling, believing, rightly or wrongly that the Supreme Court has set back the clock in so far as the practice of true federalism is concerned.

The days and months ahead will certainly provide more light on the issue. What is clear is that the court decision will not amount to much if it fails to bring rapid development to Nigerians at every nook and cranny of the country. Democracy, or federalism by whatever way it is arranged or called, must ultimately effect a marked improvement in the lives of the generality of Nigerians, particularly the impoverished masses.
[ad]
In a considered judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that financial allocations from the federation account should go directly to the accounts of the 774 local councils, rather than to the State/Local Governments’ Joint Account stipulated in the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Justice Emmanuel Agim, who read the lead judgment, said Nigeria runs a three-tier governance structure, where no one tier is subject to the whims and caprices of the others. He criticised the governors and the state assemblies for almost destroying the councils, through ill-treatment of local governments.

On July 11, this year, the Supreme Court described the payment of the allocations to the account as gross misconduct and scolded the governors for dissolving democratically elected councils and setting up caretaker committees.  The court ruled that caretaker committees, which many governors are wont to appoint, after dissolving the elected councils, are illegal and that councils run by them should not receive the federal allocation. Commonly, governors appoint caretaker committees for purely political motives, to perpetuate a controlling grip on them. And, as observed by a government official: “Since 1999, governors have used this section (162) to withhold and tamper with the funds federally allocated to the councils, using a joint account that has proven to be a honeypot of abuse.”
[ad]
In truth, most local governments have been weaned off their basic duties, while the state governors rename these duties and take over the functions, leaving local governments with just enough money to pay staff salaries. Although the states tried to impress local communities, it is clear that the governors’ interest is not all-inclusive, and is inadequate to meet the people’s aspirations.

In any event, their action negates the constitutional relevance of local governments. It is against this background that many Nigerians hailed the judgement as being for, and in the interest of the people. The hope is strong that since local governments are closest to the people, and governance is local, more Nigerians would benefit from the judicial order.

However, many Nigerians have criticised it as an ‘assault’ on Nigeria’s federalism, emphasising that the Supreme Court had simply amended the Constitution with a procedure that overlooks the constitutional provisions, as it has rewritten Section 162. Other people also postulated, as did some governors, that the 1999 Constitution recognises a two-tier and not a three-tier system of federal government; and that the Supreme Court, by its ruling has imposed a three-tier system on the country. There is also fear that the judgement has so empowered local governments to the point of possible abuse.
[ad]
Opponents of this school of thought have, however, posited on whether Nigerians should allow the law to stand still while the local councils die.  The Supreme Court appeared to infer that since the governors were using the section to perpetuate unconstitutional acts, the court must ensure that the constitution is not applied in a manner that supports its destruction. Again, the question is: can two wrongs make a right, or has the Supreme Court the powers it assumed of unilaterally amending the Constitution? Or has the court merely exercised its power to interpret the Constitution in the face of adverse or wrong assumptions?

Expectedly, President Bola Tinubu, whose government instituted the case, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision as affirming the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Constitution regarding the statutory rights of local governments.  In his words: “My administration instituted this suit because of our unwavering belief that our people must have relief, and today’s judgement will ensure that only those local officials elected by the people will control the resources of the people. This judgement is a resounding affirmation that we can use legitimate means of redress to restructure our country and economy to make Nigeria a better place to live in and a fairer society for all of our people.”
[ad]
President Tinubu noted that the provision of some essential amenities and public goods, such as the construction and maintenance of roads, streets, street lighting, drains, parks, gardens, open spaces, and other residual responsibilities, including community security, has been abandoned owing to the emasculation of local governments.

He said the court’s decision to grant financial autonomy to the councils and restate other constitutional principles reinforced the effort to enhance Nigeria’s true federal fabric for the development of the entire country. As governor of Lagos, Tinubu sought the intervention of the same Supreme Court to establish the right of states to create councils in compliance with the provisions of the constitution. His latest intervention as president, perhaps, could be seen as in furtherance of the right of the councils to survive and perform the role envisaged by the constitution.

To be continued tomorrow.