Nigerians have quite interestingly been locked in debates ever since the attorney general of the federation and minister of justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN dragged the 36 state governors and the FCT minister to the Supreme Court over what should ordinarily, be a non-contentious issue of the operation of the local government system. Merely by the way the debates have been going forth and back, it does get tempting to imagine the matter as one borne out of a constitutional lacuna when it is in fact yet another manifestation of elite pathology.
Some have argued that the contentions merely extend the frontiers of what they consider to be our anomalous three-tier federalism in the expectation that the country will somehow take in the lessons and so return to ‘pure federalism’, in which the states as the legitimate second tier in the federation would determine the fate of local governments.
My colleague on this page, Republican Ripples’ Olakunle Abimbola apparently couldn’t make the point hard enough on this when he stopped short of dubbing the quest for local government autonomy as bunkum.
“Autonomy from who? States, of which councils are integral parts? How can you seek autonomy from yourself?” he had asked in his last Tuesday piece with the same title.
He thinks the matter of local councils – in logic and creation – was flawed from the beginning and so the federal government had better back off – as if that would make the gubernatorial indulgences – from the mindless interference in the day to day operations of the councils to the expropriation of their funds – somewhat tolerable!
Not surprisingly, countless others have chosen to see things differently. Using the constitution as the point of departure, they say that the very letters of the document, not only recognises the local councils as separate, governance entities, it prescribes that their structures and operations must be in alignment with its express provisions. And because the functionaries in the states are sworn to that constitution, theirs, in the circumstance, isn’t much one of a choice but a duty to give effect to its operations at that level of government.
My other colleague and Saturday columnist, Segun Ayobolu actually introduced a new dimension to the debate when he argued that there is no such a thing as pure federalism or even unitarism and that each country would somehow have to adapt to them to their different circumstances.
Said he: “It is not enough to assert that local government councils must mandatorily be subordinated to states as an inevitable logic of the federalist ethos perhaps as handed over to us by some constitutional deity whose word is law and must be obeyed. The same argument that makes this case for states’ autonomy can also be made for local governments and may even be considered to be a deepening of the federalist logic”.
And if I may add – in which other jurisdictions – save Nigeria – do federating entities embark, on monthly pilgrimages to their national capitals to share rents? Is it a case of one ‘federalist’ anomaly being more tolerable than another? By the way, if the governors couldn’t spend a dime of their revenue without appropriation by their legislatures, where on earth do some (not all) of them derive the power to impound the allocations meant for the running of their councils which they spend as they pleased? And what is it that makes the demand that elected officials at that level be accountable for funds in their care a repudiation of the federalist principles? By appropriating what does not belong to them, have the offending governors advanced the course of federalism?
The other day, we saw a governor hand over to local council chairmen, motorcycles and Dane guns for onward distribution to local vigilantes – all in the name of security! Don’t ask me if it was part of the state budget or charged direct to the councils accounts!
Years before – in the same state, the governor thought it was his duty to purchase prized SUV toys for the use of his council chairmen at a time local government workers were several months in arrears of salaries!
So much about the federalist argument about the states better placed to know what their people want; in this instance, it would seem the governors know far better than what the democratically elected leaders know of the needs of their people!
I do understand the federal government’s dilemma as indeed what the suit filed by the AGF sought to achieve. My take however is that the suit in its entirety is somewhat superfluous. The issues at stake on the local councils autonomy question are such that require no extra doses of avant-garde jurisprudence beyond what the nation’s organic law has already provided and settled in simple English.
One imagines that the express provisions of Section 7 (1) of the constitution which provides that “the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is guaranteed under this constitution” and further that “Accordingly, the Government of every State shall…ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils” being self-explanatory, yields little or no room for obfuscation.
So much for the unhelpful hair-splitting legalese, the suit certainly speaks to nothing new outside of what Nigerians do not already know – which is that the failure to observe those provisions not only smacks of a heinous delinquency, but borders on brazen outlawry; what that knowledge means, and the question of whether the governors, in their wilful violation could plead justification in baleful ignorance are however different matters on which Nigerians are entitled to their impotent opinions! Trust me; Nigerians can do all the fancy talk; the all-powerful state governors would still have their way; they will in the end still retain those powers neither donated by the constitution nor the courts of the land, to perfect their will.
After all, what is sacking local government structures compared to the sacking of a parliament or even judges as we have seen happen in the past? Have we not seen some governors take down the roofs of parliament buildings and appointing the place where only favoured members could sit and heavens did not fall? Two members of the governors club went as far as to appoint minority lawmakers to pass laws to allow them govern as they please(d). In the first instance, 14 members in a 24-member house were shut out throughout their entire tenure with the remaining 10 allowed to carry on and no whimper was heard. Now we have a three-man gang shutting out 27 others while pretending to make laws for their beloved governor. And this, while they are yet to get their own separate police service! That is what you get in a clime when actions do not carry consequences!
To our esteemed attorney general and minister of justice, I will say – you have done well. Unfortunately, I wish you are dealing with a club most of whose members could be described as gentlemen!
Culled from The Nation
