Ibori Calls Supreme Court Judgment On Local Governments A Federalism Setback

Ibori Calls Supreme Court Judgment On Local Governments A Federalism Setback

Former Delta State Governor James Ibori has criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on the financial autonomy of the 774 local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, mandates that the federal government directly disburse allocations to LGAs from the federation account…….. CONTINUE READING

The seven-member panel of justices determined that state governments have been misusing funds intended for LGAs. Consequently, the court ordered that allocations to LGAs overseen by unelected officials appointed by governors be withheld.

Ibori, reacting on his X page, described the judgment as an attack on federalism and argued that it contravenes Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution. He asserted that the federal government has no right to interfere with LGA administration.

“The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback to the principle of federalism as defined by Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section expressly provides: ‘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,’” Ibori stated.

He also noted that Section 6 further clarifies the issue: “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 from the Government of the State.”

Ibori expressed concerns about the ruling’s implications, highlighting several key points:

– **Constitutional Interpretation**: The ruling appears to contradict Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, raising questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds.
– **Balance of Power**: The decision could shift the balance of power toward the federal government, centralizing authority contrary to federalism principles.
– **State Autonomy**: The ruling could erode state autonomy, as states are meant to control their internal affairs, including LGA administration, in a federal system.
– **Financial Independence**: Direct federal intervention in LGA finances might impact the financial independence of states and local governments, potentially allowing the federal government to use this as a tool for political leverage.
– **Precedent-Setting**: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in state governance, potentially leading to a more centralized system over time.

Ibori concluded by emphasizing the need for LGAs to be democratically elected, implying that the judgment, while well-intentioned, oversteps the bounds of the Constitution.