Edo council suspensions spark clash over local government autonomy

Governor Monday Okpebholo’s decision to suspend the chairmen and vice-chairmen of Edo State’s 18 local government areas has ignited a fierce constitutional debate. Critics have questioned the legality of the move, which appears to challenge the Supreme Court’s landmark 11 July judgment affirming local government autonomy.

The suspension, attributed to allegations of insubordination and failure to submit financial reports, has been defended by the Edo State Government as lawful. Speaking on Channels Television, Andrew Emwanta, a member of the administrative panel of inquiry set up by the governor, argued that the state acted within its constitutional powers.

READ MORE: No governor can remove LG chairmen under Tinubu’s watch, says AGF

Emwanta, a lawyer and former commissioner for communications in Edo State, stated: “The Constitution has placed local governments under state control, and that remains the law. It is now for the National Assembly to grant them full political independence, but that is not currently the case. They are not an independent organ or tier of government; they are under state control.”

He added that while financial autonomy grants local governments access to funds, it does not strip state governments of oversight. “The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution; Section 7 remains,” he said, referring to provisions in the Nigerian Constitution that outline state oversight of local councils.

However, this position has been strongly contested by legal experts and stakeholders, who have pointed to the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncements on local government autonomy. The judgment explicitly prohibits state governments from dissolving or interfering in the affairs of democratically elected local councils, declaring such actions unconstitutional and void.

READ MORE: Edo Assembly suspends 18 local government chairmen

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi, described the suspension as illegal. “Under the present dispensation, the governor has no right to remove any local government chairman,” Fagbemi stated. He emphasised that the removal of local government officials is the sole prerogative of the councils’ legislative houses, as established by the Supreme Court ruling.

The Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) has also condemned the suspensions as an abuse of power. In a statement issued on Thursday, ALGON described the action as a breach of due process and called on Governor Okpebholo and the Edo State House of Assembly to reverse the decision. “This move contradicts the Supreme Court’s judgment and undermines the autonomy guaranteed to local governments,” the statement read.

The controversy has wider political implications, with analysts predicting a potential constitutional showdown. Governor Okpebholo’s mandate is already being challenged at the Edo State Election Tribunal, adding further tension to the unfolding dispute.

READ MORE: EFCC invites suspended chairmen of Edo LGs for interrogation

“This is not just about local government autonomy; it is about the delicate balance of power between state governments, local councils, and the judiciary’s role in enforcing the Constitution,” one political analyst noted. “President Tinubu, a vocal advocate for local government authority, will undoubtedly view this as a challenge to his administration’s position. It is particularly significant that the governor taking this stance belongs to his party.”

Observers say the crisis could test the Supreme Court’s authority, as its judgment unequivocally bars state governments from managing local government funds or suspending elected officials.

In its enrolment order, the court affirmed that only the councils’ legislative houses have the authority to discipline or remove their members.

As the Edo State Government remains defiant and ALGON calls for federal intervention, attention now turns to the judiciary and President Tinubu’s administration to chart a resolution to what is shaping up to be a landmark constitutional dispute.