Chief Lateef Fagbemi SAN, the federation’s attorney general, became born again, after having previously supported the Nigerian governors in their attempt to deny local governments (LGs) financial autonomy. Insofar as the brief is good, lawyers, you know, can represent anybody, even rapists and killers.
This time, the minister of justice and learned Silk has a different perspective on the subject of LG autonomy. Or, to put it another way, he works for the Nigerian president, who appointed him as the head of the federation’s no1 legal officer. He went to the Supreme Court to request an interpretation of the Constitution’s Section 162(2), which deals with the LGs’ financial independence.
The Supreme Court granted all of the attorney general’s requested relief, which has overarching implicationsfor both the express letters of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the fundamental federalist principles. These provisions both place the governors in charge of overseeing and caring for the LGs. With little to no consideration for the landmark ruling’s implications for Nigeria as a federation, the majority of Nigerians appear to concur and commend the Supreme Court on it.
The Supreme Court knew it could not overturn the Constitution; it could only interpret it, so it made a political and policy decision with the judgement under review. It was truly remarkable. However, the Supreme Court is clinging to a perspective that no one can disprove. As a policy court, the Supreme Court renders decisions on constitutional interpretation as a court of first and last instance. In the end, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law determines its meaning. Any appeal would be to God and posterity. Put another way, the Supreme Court has the authority to veer off course and create the appropriate legal consequence, to fill the gaps in the Constitution. The 1999 constitution, which has made the country a unitary system and government, is the problem, not the Supreme Court.
It is the 1999 Constitution, which established a joint account between the States and LGs. Although inelegant, LG autonomy can still be maintained as is even without amending the constitution to smooth out any rough spots. However, in reality, the governors will be waiting for the LG councils and its chairmen to act aggressively or uncompromisingly.
The 1999 constitution, which established LGs as a layer of government and further solidified unitary federalism, is arguably the worst Nigerian constitution ever drafted. The states are the only federating units in any organic federation. Nigeria, however, is not one. Following Nigeria’s unification or amalgamation in 1914, the country began as a unitary system and began to devolve authority by creating states; from 12 to 36 states as of right now, and counting.
By weakening the states as federating units, the construction and inclusion of LGs into the constitution was a deadly move to solidify the unitary system. This provides context for understanding the Supreme Court’s decision. Therefore, support or opposition to the Supreme Court judgement depends on one’s wish for the nation, unitary or federal system.
By seizing the cash from the LGs, the governors attempted to regain their status as federating units. It was a bad plan that the Supreme Court just declared to be invalid. Although the governors had depended on the JAAC account, they are no longer able to handle LG monies directly according to the Supreme Court’s decision. Every LG would receive its money straight from the federation account and use it for its own purposes without accepting any orders or allowing the state governors to meddle.
That’s where the issue is. It’s true that state governors now have competitors in their backyards. There is nothing a governor can do to stop the federal government from dealing directly with any LG chairman for any political or economic reason. For this reason, some commentators have claimed that the Tinubu administration is planning to seize control of LGs to avoid the governors’ oppressive influence, particularly when it comes to elections.
Even if this accusation was not the goal of the Tinubu administration, it will eventually turn out to be an unexpected consequence by default, and it will manifest itself to its fullest extent in 2027 when the incumbent president will be running for reelection.
If the governors haven’t seen this coming since 1999, it’s their entire fault. Since LG autonomy would need 24-state concurrent affirmations to pass as a constitutional amendment, the governors’ only action whenever it was introduced as a constitutional amendment was to block it in their states.
The complete handover of the LGs via their removal from the constitution is what the governors should have fought for the entire time. However, since the LGs serve as the foundation for revenue sharing, the states that unfairly benefit from the military’s favoritism—which has unfairly and unequally created the LGs—never gave that much thought because it would mean having less money to play with.
Currently, 21 states with caretaker committees have three months to schedule LG elections, or else their LG allocations will be withheld. When such occurs, since the Supreme Court has already made a decision, the governors will be unable to file an appeal with the apex court, as President Tinubu did when serving as the governor of Lagos State during the Obasanjo presidency.
It’s still not uhuru for the LG autonomy. The state governors will continue their reliance on the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) to select their connies as LG chairmen and thereby sustain their financial and other forms of indirect control over the LGs. Using a constitutional amendment, the FG must get the INEC to take over the LG elections.
An electoral agency for LG elections is now being considered by the NASS. Let it also be mentioned that, as desired as this major step may be, it will be the last straw that breaks the nation’s federalism, since it will annex the LGs to the centre and castrate the state governments. By elevating LGs to the status of autonomous governments and technically federating units, supporters of democracy and federalism should recognise the risk of delegitimising states or sharing splitting their powers as federating units.
To reiterate, the inclusion of LGs in the constitution is an aberration and anomaly that has to be fixed by removing them from the constitution and granting state governments the authority to establish and manage them as they see fit. That is the situation in the other twenty-five federalist nations.
That is the neglected perspective and a risky one at that. Nigeria is either unitary or federated. Nigeria cannot practice an increasingly unitary system while remaining a federation in name alone.
· Dr. Law Mefor, an Abuja-based forensic and social psychologist, is a fellow of The Abuja School of Social and Political Thought; [email protected]; Twitter: @Drlawsonmefor.
