Connect with us

Politics

Controversy persists over LGs fiscal autonomy

Published

on

Controversy persists over LGs fiscal autonomy

 …as President Tinubu, AGF, others disagree on implementation

Unsettled dust is still trailing  the perceived autonomy of the Local  774 local government in Nigeria following the Supreme Court decision last year.

The latest statement  by  President Bola Ahmed Tinubu when  both the Vice President,  Kashim Shettima  and the governors visited him to pay homage during  the New year,  over the autonomy  granted by the Supreme court to the Local governments seems to be confusing and appears to have  brought new dimensions into the  subsisting argument on the issue.

President Tinubu had said during the visit  that there was no disagreement between him and the governors  but all he wanted was the development  at the grassroots.

He argued  that there were gossips everywhere that “we had disagreements on local government autonomy. No. Just drive development at the local government level. Nobody wants to take them away from you, but we need collaboration.”

At the same time, he called on the governors to ensure that local governments fulfill the expectations of the people, saying that they are the  bedrock of development.

President Tinubu  pointed out that there was  the need for stronger collaboration between the federal and state governments, to solve  the   pressing challenges being faced presently in Nigeria, in order to accelerate national development.

He highlighted the important  role of state governors in driving economic growth, food security, and grassroots development.

With these words coming from the President at a time when Nigerians seem to have lost patients  over the delay in implementing the Supreme court’s order  concerning  the Local governments, there appears also  that there  was contradictions  and confusions on the matter. It was argued in some quarters that

Advertisement

President Tinubu knew what he was doing, that  he was only playing politics and that does not prevent the implementation of the Court verdict,  which is now sacrosanct  based  on the law.

A public affairs analyst and former Press Secretary to the former Oyo state governor, Dr. Omololu Olunloyo, Elder Moses Olorode,  said that  the statement of President Tinubu, did not indicate that  the law would not be obeyed, saying that the governors have no place to hide. He argued that apart  from the fact that they would be in people’s court, they would be liable and as well don’t have moral justification not to  implement what the laws says and backed by the judgment  of the highest court in the land, which verdict brings the issue to a final conclusion.

Before President Tinubu’s  statement, the Attorney General of the Federation, and the Minister of Justice. Lateef Fagbemi, had warned that it was  not right for the governors not to implement what the Court pronounced, saying defiance amount to an impeachable offence.

Fagbemi argued  that  disregarding the verdict by some governors  now passing state laws in contrast to the apex court’s  judgement could lead to  impeachment.

The AGF,  knocked  the governors recently  at the     2024 Annual General Conference of the Abuja Chapter of the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC),

He disclosed that the federal government would not rest, and therefore,  threatened  that  charges would be filed  against elected officials teaming up   with governors to divert allocations meant for the  774 Local governments in Nigeria.

Fagbemi frowned at the reports   that council  staff  have to notify governors in advance before they could spend their own money for basic things such as stationery.

“And we have listened to such funny arguments before and after the judgement, to the effect that, oh, they are not matured enough. I said, how better are you? Are you any better? Leave them alone.

“And we have been drumming this into the ears of the local government officials that look, the governors have immunity, but you don’t have. So, it is very easy for you to get yourself to Kuje or other prisons spread across Nigeria.”

Advertisement

“Before I go further, let me say that even before the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, there were so many pressures coming from left, right and center.”

“But I give kudos to the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who in spite of the pressure, was able to stand up and say that he is the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that the 774 local governments are also people to be protected and he did so.”

What the  Attorney  General did to get  the Supreme court  verdict for fiscal autonomy for the councils was a decade  battle because the activities of the LGS have been completely  grounded  and that  was why,  it has  been a landmark  judgment.

Although the states fought and struggled  not to  allow  that to  happen,  the Court insisted  that it was not right to allow the status  quo  remain, while it condemned the  usual practice by the governors to dissolve democratically elected councils, once a new government is in place, despite the fact that  those dissolved are yet to complete  their terms, and ordered that  their funds  paid directly to them, since withholding it is unconstitutional.

The joint account  allocation as it was constituted made the LGs an inferior partner, which could not raise any eyebrow, on how the states are disbursing  and sharing the allocation and this process contravenes  section 162 of the  constitution of the Federal  Republic of Nigeria of 1999.

The governors have also been seeing themselves  as lords, and therefore,  give out what pleases  them to the councils and, as such, the councils were incapacitated  to perform their statutory functions as directed by the constitution.

As enumerated by the Attorney  General  of the Federation Fagbemi, with  the  fiscal  independence  of the LGs, they  would  be and should be able  to be responsible for the primary schools, health care centres, which had eluded them before the new order.

As it were,  some local government chairmen who were bold enough to challenge the governors  were intimidated and removed. This situation made the LG chairmen appendages  of the governors and they dare not talk.

According to a legal luminary  and former  chairman  of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Brach, Barrister Bisi Ade-Ademuwagun, despite the jubilation over the  LGs autonomy, there are still some lacuna, causing  the controversies and confusions. He said though,  the LGs would receive  their allocations directly,  to determine  what they would do with it,, execute projects independently and even determine  sources of their revenues, the grey area are that the Supreme court did not go into the powers of the State Assembly, that the Assemblies have no powers over the LGs and as such,  the way their finances  would  be administered  is  still subject to the Assemblies at liberty to promulgate laws for the states, which the Local governments are  under.

Advertisement

He argued that although the local government have their by-laws, which are not superior to that of the State, Assemblies.

it was argued that the  1999 constitution has many faulty provisions, which are not  expected to be sorted out by the apex court in the land.  Some of these flaws are what it was believed the states  would capitalize on  to still put the LGs under their  armpits.

As the Deputy Governor of Oyo State, Barrister   Bayo Lawal, argued,   people must not look at the Supreme  Court judgment  in isolation; they  should take  critical  and holistic look at the constitution and why it is still difficult  to enforce the the judgement.

“Many people  have said a lot about this issue. I was at  the  National Economic Council meeting  (NEC), held before  the New year. The governors said that we have that judgment  on our hands and the Attorney  General of the  Federation said that judgment  must be enforced. It can not be enforced  because it is standing on grounds not formidable.”

The Judgment, which is hanging, would  be difficult  to enforce and any judgment that is difficult  to enforce  becomes “odious:   as we lawyers would say and it becomes unenforceable.”

With these  situation now on ground, section 8 and 9 of the Constitution of Nigeria, ensures and guarantees  that the existence  of the Local government is democratically under the state government, warning that local government  can’t  exist unless you have a state in existence.  And so Local government can’t or should not by any interpretation, be an independent arm of any  government  and if this were to be so, I would say that it was not proper  for the Local  government chairmen to be in attendance  at the NEC Meeting, which i attended, representing  Oyo State, to be present and “what kind of arrangement is that?

“This is why right thinking people, CSOs, lawyers and Journalist  should come out to do holistic  interpretations   of the judgment”

“Let me blow  your minds. In 1999 I was the Attorney General of Oyo State,  and people should remember  that it was an era of zero allocation to local government across the Federation and we should not forget that there were a lot of local governments  across Nigeria  then, that could not pay salaries of their workers.

“It amuses me that Nigerians are not deep in their thinking and have not bothered  to find out  why  the local government joint account was  created. If people care to know it was done under section 162 (5)  and in spite of the Supreme Court judgment  in july 2024, that section still stands and it has not been repealed, neither amended.

Advertisement

“We should note that this is a section standing  on its  own and the Supreme Court judgment  also standing  on its own.”

According to him, “Nigerians  should be educated about what is happening  and this is where you journalists come into the picture, to let people know what is happening  and the situation of things.

“You see the perception  up there is that governors are  depriving   the local governments  what is due to to them. No, that is not true; the  constitution is clear about the whole thing.

“As such, if  that judgment  is fully implemented, the councils would be the losers and greatly  affected and I can assure you that it would bring us back to the 1999 era of zero allocation with the local governments.”

However,  Barrister Bayo Lawal’s argument got a support of the Minority judgment  on the local  government, with the dissenting voice of   Justice Habeeb Abiru, who was of the opinion  that the court cannot take over the job of the National Assembly. He averred  “the court cannot use liberal or broad interpretation principles to fill in perceived gaps in the provisions of the constitution; that is the job for the legislature.”

Justice Abiru  pointed out the case of the Attorney-General of the Federation versus Atiku (2007), where Akitan (JSC) held that ”for the court to enact or write into the constitution what its makers failed to insert would amount to the court enacting laws and Lord Simmons described such an act ”a naked usurpation of legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation, and it is the less justifiable when it is guess work with what material the legislature would, if it had discovered the gap, have filled it in. If a gap is discovered, the remedy lies on the amending Act.”

With the argument still ranging, there are strong indications that the last is not yet heard about  the debate on the Local government autonomy and with various lacunae  both in the constitution and the judicial  pronouncements, it is clear that  if some governors succumbed, there  are others, who would not and would want to pursue the matter to a logical conclusion, despite the last Supreme  Court judgment, which some of them have found to be with  flaws.

It  was also argued that some of the States would not let  go easily because they have committed so much, which are  tied  to the local government funds.

It would be recalled that some of the past state governors had issues with the the Economic  Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) over the way the local government funds were spent and it was argued that many serving governors today are likely  to face the same faith, when they are out of office and would not have immunity  to favour them for  various financial crimes they must have committed while in office.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *