Unless the three arms of government, particularly at the federal level, are alive to the responsibilities assigned to them by the constitution towards ensuring proper and effective running of the local councils, the third tier of government will for a longer time remain in the ‘captivity’ of some law-breaking state governments to the detriment of the welfare of the people at the grassroots, ongoing democratic experiment and national development.
Expecting that leaders at the state level, most of who have been accused of grossly lacking in character alongside their inability to manage their greed, will adjust and stop their frustrating influence on the local government will amount to chasing shadows. It could not have been a mistake that the local councils were created to constitute the third tier of government, they have specific roles to play in nation-building, which have been stalled for decades now because of the disruptions caused by the overbearing influence of most state governors. After lamentations, it is time to take practical steps to bring back the local governments to freely perform their constitutional tasks.
The Senate recently lamented that the supposedly third tier of government in this federation, the local government authority (LGA) is not working because of the undue interference by the state authorities. Contributors to the Senate discussion did not mince words to accuse state governors of acts detrimental to the smooth functioning of the LGAs.
Senator Suleiman Kawu (NNPP, Kano South) spoke copiously on the lofty expectations for grassroots democracy and development that the LGAs, as self governing entities with elected officials should fulfill as originally conceived. He pointedly alleged that some governors play a crucial role in frustrating local government autonomy. Deputy Senate President Jibrin Barau alleged that ‘governors misappropriate local government funds …force the chairmen to sign off cheques and give them meagre amounts as running costs…’ These are damning allegations that, if they were not true, should have by now attracted vigorous denial and possibly other measures from state chief executives. So far, there has been no denial. If silence is acquiescence, then Nigerians have cause to worry about the integrity of leadership at the state level.
If, as Barau so hyperbolically put it, ‘local governments are dead in Nigeria,’ it cannot happen unless there is a dereliction of duties at different levels of governance; the fault lies squarely on different arms of government at the three levels of government. First, the state governors exert overbearing influence on the local government officials most importantly because men of stature, confidence, integrity and a wide network of high-level contacts do not seek these positions. If such men and women offer themselves for service in the LGAs, crooked governors would think twice about wanting to subjugate them. Instead, desperate, underemployed or even jobless persons fight tooth and nail to get into these and other public offices merely to access public resources for self-interest. Such persons cannot stand up to an overbearing governor. Indeed, this explains that the worst of us govern the best of us who turn around to complain lamely about poor governance. It is no exaggeration that Nigeria’s ‘First Eleven’ is not in the saddle at any level of government; the evidence is glaring, including the ‘killing’ of the local government administration.
Second, if the Senate finds aberrations in the way the LGAs are administered, it has wide powers under the extant constitution to redress them. Contrary to the resolution that the executive arm should, as reported in the media, champion the cause of full autonomy for local governments in the country, the National Assembly under Part II Section 4 can, in its wisdom, ‘make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of the federation or any part thereof…’. Besides, this section also grants to the federal legislature the superiority of its enactments over state assembly. This point needs to be noted in the power given to state authorities by various provisions in Section 162. It is, therefore, needless to push to the table of President Bola Tinubu what the National Assembly can and should do.
Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution broadly empowers the National Assembly to prescribe ‘such terms and in such manner’ the amount standing to the credit of local government councils which is to be shared by the state ‘for the benefit of their councils’. Implicit in this clause is that the National Assembly must ensure that the funds it approves for the LGAs are received intact by them and utilised to benefit their people. The entire Section 162 (4-8) is clear enough to ensure a reasonable level of transparency in the funding of the LGAs. Alas, where there is a will to subvert the law, a determined man and woman will find a way to do so.
Apart from misappropriating LGA funds, governors stand accused of subverting the democratic process whereby council administrations can emerge through free and fair elections. They resort to so-called caretaker committees, ad-hoc administrative contraptions put together at the whim of the governor to do as he dictates. In an embarrassing example of democracy without democrats, Senator Ifeanyi Ubah (Anambra South) alleged that “a state like Anambra has not conducted local government election in the last 18 years.” Such outrageous, deliberate and self-serving behaviour is a flagrant violation of Section 7 (1) which states that ‘the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is, under this Constitution, guaranteed…’ The provision goes further to charge ‘the government of every state … to ensure the existence of democratically elected councils under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance, and functions of such councils.’
That the state authorities entrusted with these responsibilities choose to disobey the law and convert the LGAs to what a commentator terms ‘stealing centres’ is disgraceful; it speaks much that is disturbing about the character and other qualities of the states’ leaders who are, themselves, supposedly beneficiaries of a democratic election.
Because their personal history is being written by these acts of commission or omission, state governors should, as we urge them, worry about the public perception of their behaviours and role individually and collectively, in sustaining or subverting Nigeria’s ongoing experiment at democracy.
As far back as the 1980s, the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida scrapped the ministry of local government in the states to free that third tier of government from the control of governors. It is strange and unfortunate that such a progressive step, taken as a result of the experience of the overbearing influence of the states, should be reversed in the 1999 Constitution. That amounts to a political regression for this country.
Autonomy for the LGAs is desirable, as all right-thinking persons agree. But Senator Kawu posits that ‘some governors play a crucial role in frustrating it.’ We should think most governors are guilty, and this ignoble stand has a long history.
To redress this unacceptable anomaly, Senator Ahmed Lawan urged the Senate to ‘find a way of improving the capacity of those who run the local council system, and this requires devolution of powers’ which requires a constitutional amendment that, as presently constructed, is tortuous route. However, it is within the immediate powers of the National Assembly to, as Ubah suggested, amend Section 7 – and indeed any other provisions -as necessary to ensure that, as prescribed by law, first, elections are transparently conducted in the LGAs and second, that the structure, composition, finance and functions are established and operated, as appropriate to a democracy, for the highest good of the people at the grassroots. Also, there should be sanctions against persons who in any way hamper the smooth operations of local councils thereby denying citizens their just dividends of democracy.
President Tinubu, in his ‘Renewed Hope 23’ document promises to ‘rebalance the responsibilities and authorities of the different tiers of government…’; ‘review … the federation allocation system to recalibrate the division of funds among the three tiers of government (such that) more funds… be allocated to the states and local governments (to) better address local concerns and fulfill their expanded constitutional obligations to the people.’ These are good ideas that need to be implemented quickly, transparently and following the due process of law.
