Why LG autonomy is not negotiable

Worried by the myriad of problems associated with local government administration in Nigeria, especially the way the statutory funds from the Federation Account for the local governments are being handled and spent by their state governors, the Federal Government initiated a civil action against the 36 states for the autonomy of local governments.

The clamour for the autonomy had been persistent from various sections of the Nigerian society because it was believed that state governments are tampering with the funds meant for the local governments. In most cases, the funds are either diverted to other purposes not meant for the development of the local government or grossly mismanaged or misappropriated without any transparency and accountability by the state governments who administer the funds according to their whims and caprices. It is believed that the problems of underdevelopment associated with local government administration led to the increase in criminality and different social vices in our society, especially in the communities where an effective local government administration is expected to make great developmental impacts with the magnitude of statutory allocation of funds from the Federation Account.

The action for the local government autonomy was therefore instituted ex aequo et bono by the Attorney General of the Federation against the 36 state governors on the allocation of statutory funds for the 774 local government areas in the country.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement in the case of Attorney General Of The Federation V. Attorney General Of Abia State And 35 Others with the suit no: SC/CV/343/2024; delivered on July 11; in the spirit of Sed Quare Public Juris: categorically and unequivocally directed and mandated that statutory allocations for each of the 774 local government areas in the country shall be directly paid into their respective accounts from the consolidated revenue fund particularly in line with the provisions of section 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Modo et forma, the apex court held as follows:

A declaration that the 36 States of Nigeria, or anyone of them, acting through their/its respective State Governors or State House of Assembly, are/is under obligation to ensure democratic governance at the third tier of government in Nigeria, namely, at the Local Government level.

A declaration that the amount distributed to and standing to the credit of Local Government Councils in the Federation Account can be paid by the Federation directly to democratically elected Local Government Councils.

A declaration that, by virtue of section 162(3) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the amount standing to the credit of Local Government Councils in the Federation Account shall be distributed to them and be paid directly to them.

A declaration that a State, either by itself or its Governor or other agencies, has no power to keep, control, manage, or disburse in any manner, allocations from the Federation Account to Local Government Councils.

A declaration that the current practice of states keeping, controlling, managing and disbursing local government allocations from Federation Account is unconstitutional and illegal; a declaration that a local government council is entitled to a direct payment from the Federation Account of the amount standing to its credit in the said Federation Account; an order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their privies, agents, officials or howsoever called, from further collecting, receiving, spending or tampering with local government council funds from the federation account for the benefit of local government councils; an order that the federation or Federal Government of Nigeria, through its relevant officials, forthwith commence the direct payment to each Local Government Council of the amount standing to the credit of each of them in the Federation Account and an order of immediate compliance by the States, through their elected or appointed officials and public officers, with the terms of this judgment and orders made in this Suit, and successive compliance by successive state government officials and public officers.

The experience of the Attorney General of the Federation in approaching the Supreme Court over the matter is highly appreciated because if the Federal Government had wanted to go for the amendment of the constitution for the autonomy, such an attempt would have been tantamount to clutching at straw because the governors by their position on the matter, will definitely frustrate the constitutional requirements for the amendment by railroading the State Houses of Assembly into the rejection of same. The landmark judgement being a case law now; there is no amount of revulsion or criticism that any other authority can make to scuttle its enforcement.

Therefore, devolving more responsibilities to the local government areas and allowing them full autonomy will help to function effectively and perform their constitutional functions as stated in the fourth schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The main functions of a local government are as follows- (a) The consideration and the making of recommendations to a state commission on economic planning or any similar body on; (i) The economic development of the State, particularly in so far as the areas of authority of the council and of the State are affected, and; (ii) Proposal made by the said commission or body; (b) collection of rates, radio and television licences; (c) establishment and maintenance of cemeteries, burial ground and homes for the destitute or infirm; (d) licensing of bicycles, trucks (other than mechanically propelled trucks), canoes, wheel barrows and carts; (e) establishment, maintenance and regulation of slaughter houses, slaughter slabs, markets motor parks and public conveniences; (f) construction and maintenance of roads, streets, street lighting, drains and other public highways, parks, gardens, open spaces, or such public facilities as may be prescribed from time to time by the House of Assembly of a state; (g) naming of roads and streets and numbering of houses; (h) provision and maintenance of public conveniences, sewage and refuse disposal; (i) registration of all births, death and marriages; (j) assessment of privately owned houses or tenements for the purpose of levying such rates as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of a State; and (k) control and regulation of; (i) out-door advertising and hoarding; (ii) movement and keeping of pets of all description; (iii) shops and kiosks; (iv) restaurants, bakeries and other places for sales of food to the public; (v) laundries, and (vi) licensing, regulation and control of the sale of liquor.

2. The functions of a local government council shall include participation of such council in the Government of a State as respects the following matters- (a) the provision and maintenance of primary, adult and vocational education; (b) the development of agriculture and natural resources, other that the exploitation of minerals; (c) the provision and maintenance of health services; and (d) such other functions as may be conferred on a local government council by the House of Assembly of the State.

As a matter of reiteration, for all the local government areas to perform all the constitutional functions, it is now obvious that the issue of their autonomy as established in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court is not negotiable and the judgement was draped pro bono publico.

• Akande is a legal practitioner.

READ ALSO: Drama as Jigawa commissioners, SAs clash over seats