Understandably, the Federal Government’s insistence on due process in the administration of local government, coupled with the Supreme Court judgment granting financial autonomy for the councils seems to have raised an alarm on the part of governors. They fear that the Tinubu administration may be attempting to hijack their (governors’) power of some limited control over the local governments.
This fear should not be accorded undue significance given that due process, particularly in the election and removal of heads of government (including council chairmen) should be the hallmark of any democratic government. Governors should therefore seize the encouragement of President Tinubu to galvanise governmental activities on a large scale at the local government level. It would appear that the president is only interested in grassroots development which invariably will rub off positively on his administration.
That being so, governors, whose constitutional mandate to ensure the security and welfare of the people is in tandem with the president’s mandate, should be equally interested in the smooth and legitimate running of local governments.
The financial autonomy granted to 774 local government councils by the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court on July 11, 2024, will remain an illusion unless credible processes of leadership selection and stability are allowed to drive administrative and governance procedures. In December 2024, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi declared the suspension of elected local government chairmen in Edo State as unconstitutional and illegal.
According to the country’s chief law officer, “If I did not know before, since July 11, 2024, I became aware that the removal of any local government chairman or official would be the prerogative of that local government, through their legislative house.” Apparently, in response to the development in Edo State, President Tinubu denied any possibility of a rift with state governors regarding local government autonomy; insisting that his administration has no plan to take the control of local government away from the governors. It is imperative to weigh in on what now appears as a conundrum with respect to legitimacy and stability in the administration of local government.
The official disposition that suggests the ambivalence of the federal government regarding the autonomy of local government is rather unhelpful and, in the long run, inimical to democracy and governance at the grassroots. The president and governors should appreciate that insisting on proper governance at the local government level does not necessarily translate into friction with the governors. What is of paramount interest to Nigerians is the primacy of democracy anchored on transparency and accountability at the local government level.
To engender inclusive participation in sustainable development at the local government level, genuine democracy anchored on credible elections remains the minimum prerequisite. The local government is in a veritable position to guarantee enduring policies and programme implementation that can eradicate poverty among the masses of the people. Since the local government remains the closest to the people, inclusive participation of stakeholders across the political divide should be prioritised and not be encumbered by deliberate manipulation of leadership selection and undue interference from the state government.
While the majority of Nigerians expect that the Supreme Court’s decision on financial autonomy will translate into greater latitude for positive electoral participation, recent happenings, across the states have, however, proven to the contrary. More than hitherto, the local government system appears to have completely fallen under the grip of state governors whose desperation to control the political structures, to the exclusion of the opposition, has become increasingly fierce.
It is indeed a matter of serious concern that existing gaps in local government administration continue to pose a dilemma even as the federal government appears resolute in ensuring the direct release of monthly revenue allocations to the coffers of local government councils across the country. It should be disturbing that transparency and accountability may continue to be elusive at the local government level; notwithstanding financial autonomy, if those in authority are handpicked for self-serving motives rather than allow leaders to emerge based on popular approbation and acceptance.
There is no doubt that the quantum share of national revenue accruing to the local government council if properly managed, could be deployed to positively change the ugly narratives of neglect and squalor at the grassroots. Unfortunately, local government funds are readily deployed as incentives for unbridled politics of manipulation and exclusion which ruling parties in states across the country prioritised with wanton indulgence.
The antidote to the prevalent abuse and corruption is to allow local government to function as independent entities presided over by legitimately elected officials who would be held to account for any breach of trust of public office. It is high time state governors accept local government councils as independent and potential partners in progress in the collective desire to ensure that sustainable development is not only achievable but exhaustive enough for the overarching transformation of society.
The relevance of the local government in the prevailing and emerging era cannot be overemphasized, as the country faces myriads of challenges that require the attention of the government in creating the necessary enabling environment that links the community with the government at the sub-national and national levels. Citizens’ participation in governance and engagement in efforts that promote livelihoods and sustainable development is better guaranteed when the local government functions optimally as a platform of governance.
At no time than now in the history of the country, has the need for functional local governance become so compelling in meeting the yearnings for a participatory approach to governance; in addressing the overbearing challenges rooted in environmental, economic and social inadequacies in the local community.
Unfortunately, much of the expertise and human resources needed to elevate governance at the local government cannot be attracted owing largely to the flawed leadership recruitment process encumbered by compromise of the electoral process that only allows the emergence of political lackeys who are not only incompetent but lacking the required pedigree to provide leadership that can return the local government system to its pride of place in the governance structure of the country.
