Supreme Court’s Ruling On Local Government Autonomy Unworkable, Says Olu Fasan

Supreme Court’s Ruling On Local Government Autonomy Unworkable, Says Olu Fasan....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The intervention presented diverges from the prevailing sentiment in Nigeria. Many influential figures are praising the recent Supreme Court ruling on local government autonomy without considering its implications. Yet, as Socrates aptly noted, the validity of an opinion does not hinge on its popularity among the majority or the influential. While I unequivocally condemn the stifling of local governments by state governors, I vehemently oppose the Supreme Court’s approach to the issue, which appears to subvert the Constitution and undermine Nigeria’s federal structure……… CONTINUE READING 

Here’s what the Constitution explicitly states: Section 162(5) mandates that local government allocations from the Federation Account “shall be allocated to the States for the benefit of their Local Government Councils.” Section 165(6) reinforces this by requiring each State to maintain a “State Joint Local Government Account” into which these allocations must be deposited. Furthermore, Section 162(8) stipulates that the funds credited to the Local Government Councils of a State should be distributed as prescribed by the State House of Assembly. The use of the term “shall” leaves no room for ambiguity.

The framers of the Constitution aimed to achieve two primary goals. Firstly, they sought to uphold federalism by designating local governments as the responsibility of State governments. This is evident in the use of phrases like “their Local Government Councils” and the establishment of the State Joint Local Government Account. Secondly, they intended to ensure the financial viability of local governments by mandating that State governments transfer allocations “for the benefit of their Local Government Councils.” Regrettably, State governors have flouted this mandate, thereby financially suffocating local governments.

The task before the Supreme Court was to rectify this anomaly and uphold the framers’ dual intentions. However, the Court’s decision granted financial autonomy to local governments but did so by distorting the Constitution and undermining federalism. The Court asserted that the existing constitutional arrangements were dysfunctional and invoked a broad interpretation of the law, claiming that “demands of justice” necessitated this progressive stance. This judicial activism essentially involved making new constitutional provisions under the guise of interpretation.

However, can the Supreme Court alter the Constitution through such indirect means, bypassing the prescribed constitutional amendment process? The provisions of Section 162 remain unchanged; yet the Court has effectively nullified the State Joint Local Government Account and removed the role of State Houses of Assembly in fund distribution among local governments. Instead of rewriting the Constitution, the Court should have interpreted the framers’ intentions and compelled State governors to comply.

A judge’s role is to render decisions grounded in existing law. As Justice Sydney Kentridge remarked, veering from legal language to abstract ‘values’ amounts to fortune-telling rather than interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision in the local government autonomy case exemplifies such fortune-telling, as it used “demands of justice” to justify altering the Constitution and undermining federalism.

Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect this decision mirrors previous manipulations of the judiciary by powerful figures in Nigeria. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court nullified President Buhari’s Executive Order 10 for violating federalism, yet now it endorses similar actions, eroding what little federalism remains in Nigeria.

In any genuine federal system, local government falls under state jurisdiction, as in the US under the Dillion Rule. The US Federal Government does not litigate state governors over local government matters. While the relationship between Nigerian states and local governments falters, judicial activism is not the solution; instead, a political and constitutional overhaul is needed to restructure Nigeria and establish equitable relationships among its constituent units.

Tinubu’s claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling supports restructuring through “legitimate means of redress” is misguided. Judicial activism cannot achieve restructuring; only political and legislative processes can. This ruling will likely provoke political upheaval in states without achieving its intended reforms. Local governments may gain financial autonomy, but they will lack administrative and political independence, as governors continue to control council elections and finances.

To illustrate, under Tinubu’s tenure as governor and later as a political kingpin in Lagos State, local governments had no real autonomy. Now, he champions local government autonomy in Nigeria—how hypocritical!

Stay connected via Google News

Follow us for the latest travel updates and guides.