…Reactions, Controversies Trail Judgement on Local Government Autonomy …Adamawa Government Seeks Interpretation of Section 162 Of The Constitution Before The Apex Court The Supreme Court of Nigeria has strengthened the 774 local governments in Nigeria against the domineering control over their funds by the 36 State Governments ruling in a landmark judgment that it is
…Reactions, Controversies Trail Judgement on Local Government Autonomy
…Adamawa Government Seeks Interpretation of Section 162 Of The Constitution Before The Apex Court
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has strengthened the 774 local governments in Nigeria against the domineering control over their funds by the 36 State Governments ruling in a landmark judgment that it is unconstitutional for the state governors to receive funds meant for the local governments into State accounts before being shared to the third-tier of government.
The apex Court ruled on Thursday that local government funds from the federation account must be credited directly into their different accounts. The apex court also barred the state governors from arbitrarily dissolving democratically elected local government administrations.
Justice Emmanuel Agim of the apex court made the landmark declaration today while giving a judgment on the case filed by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), against the 36 state governors, seeking full autonomy for all local governments in the country as the third tier of government as stated in the constitution.
The federal government, in a suit marked SC/CV/343/2024, argued that even though the Nigerian constitution recognises the three tiers of government for operations and governance in the country, the state governments have usurped the role of the 774 local governments in the country. The AGF had complained about the lack of financial independence for the local governments as the state governors continued to sit on their funds since they operate a joint account.
The Supreme Court ruled and barred payment of federal allocation to local government areas without elected chairpersons. In the suit, the Attorney General of the Federation had accused the governors of dissolving democratically elected local government officials arbitrarily, failing to implement a democratically elected local government system, and suspending democratic institutions in the state, even though no state of emergency had been declared.
In their objection, the 36 state governors during the hearing claimed that AGF lacks the authority and jurisdiction to file such a lawsuit against them.
However, in a unanimous decision by a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, Justice Agim ruled against the state governors, stating that the AGF has the authority to initiate such a suit and protect the constitution. As a result, the court determined that the local government allocation from Federation accounts should be paid directly to them rather than to the state’s accounts.
The court held that it is illegal for Governors to dissolve democratically elected Local Governments. It ordered the Federal Government to henceforth withhold allocations to Local Governments governed by unelected officials appointed by the Governor. It barred the Federal Government from further paying LG allocations through the State Governments since the practice has been abused by Governors.
The judges also ruled that the retention of funds for the local council put them at the mercy of the state government, potentially jeopardising grass-roots activities. As a result, he ordered the government to comply with the court ruling immediately.
The judgment by the Supreme Court implies that an end may have come to the long-standing practice of making the local governments ineffective in the country.
Reactions, Controversies Trail Judgement on Local Government Autonomy
In one of the earliest reactions to the Supreme Court judgment, Chief Onanefe James Ibori former governor of Delta State accused the Supreme Court of violating the principle of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution. On his X handle, he commented as follows:
“The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section expressly provides thus:
“Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly”. Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter.
“(6) Each State shall maintain a special account to be called “State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and the Government of the State.
“The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.
“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:
“1. 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.
“2. 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 centralizes more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.
“3. 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.
“4. 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.
“5. 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.
“That Local Governments must be “democratically elected “ goes without saying. Yes, I agree, that’s the position of the constitution but withholding their allocation is not the way to go. It’s wrong.
“In the coming days, we will begin to fully understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision. An assault on the constitution is not the answer to fiddling with the Joint LG Account. If the ruling is saying Governors cannot temper, touch, or fiddle with the Joint Accounts, that’s fine because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place. Asking the Federal Government to pay Local Government allocations to the account of the Local Government directly will lead to utter chaos and avoidable friction in governance.
“Like the Hon. Justice Oputa JSC of blessed memory once said in describing the Supreme Court “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final”.
“It is my sincere hope that the judgment delivered today will be reviewed at the earliest time possible because it stands the concept of federalism on its head.
Adamawa Government Seeks Interpretation Of Section 162 Of The Constitution Before The Apex Court
The Adamawa State Government has approached the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of Section 162 (1), (2), and (3) of the Constitution regarding the distribution of revenue from the Federation Account. They argue that:
1. The entire sum in the Federation Account must be distributed among all levels of government without deductions, except as permitted by law.
2. The President must comply strictly with the Constitution in managing and distributing revenue.
3. All revenue collected, except those exempted by the Constitution, must be paid into the Federation Account for distribution to all tiers of government.
4. The Federal Government has no discretion to withhold or deduct revenue for any purpose not expressly permitted by the Constitution.
In essence, the Adamawa State Government is seeking a declaration that:
– The Federal Government must distribute the entire revenue from the Federation Account without deductions, except as permitted by law.
– Any deductions or withholdings made without constitutional backing are unconstitutional.
– The Federal Government’s discretion to manage revenue is limited to only what is expressly permitted by the Constitution.
The State Government is seeking a strict interpretation of the Constitution to ensure that revenue distribution is done transparently and constitutionally, without arbitrary deductions or withholdings by the Federal Government.
Humwashi Wonosikou
Chief Press Secretary to the Governor
10:07:2024
Governors Forum Meets
The judgment has created panic in different government houses where the implications of the new rules and strategies to circumvent them are being discussed and analysed. Some of the Governors have argued that the Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution and power to make laws and alter the Constitution lies with the National Assembly.
The Governors under the platform of the Governors Forum have conveyed a meeting to discuss the latest development.
