Follow Us on Google
Soon after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on the autonomy of local governments in July 2024, a staunch supporter of President Bola Tinubu took to his X handle and wrote: “If governors don’t want to support us in 2027, the local government chairmen will.” He ended the comment with a short note, which read: “E ma threaten wa” literally meaning “don’t threaten us.” I do not know how many governors read the X post, but comments that followed it suggest that the Supreme Court decision was more influenced by politics than by the effective management of local governments and the sustainability of development at that level of government. The comments were eulogies for Tinubu for using the court to strike a devastating blow on the governors by creatively dislocating them and settling to pursue his 2027 dreams with local government chairmen.
However, that logic has failed as it is now more obvious that the power of 36 governors can uproot the 774 local government chairmen, turn them into paupers, and bring them to their knees begging for accommodation. Critically examined, the Supreme Court decision aimed to ensure that local governments enjoyed financial autonomy as well as direct administration by elected officials. But the reality, more than one year after, is as it was before July 2024. Between July 2024 and June 2025, allocations to local governments reached N4.47 trillion, but they remained under the control of governors. This has had a direct effect on infrastructure development at the local government level.
What the governors have done is, to a large extent, to exert their influence, which was also constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court decided on the direct funding of local governments but failed to abrogate Section 162(6) of the constitution, which established the State Joint Local Government Account (SJLGA) and permitted states to receive and distribute federal allocations as the governor pleases. In other words, while the Supreme Court upheld Section 7(1), which mandates that states ensure democratically elected local governments, and Section 162, which mandates the allocation of revenues from the federation account to LGAs, supplemented by 10% of state internally generated revenue (IGR), the SJLGA requires that federal funds pass through the states. This is why the July 2024 Supreme Court ruling has failed to arm-twist governors and bring them to submit to the President’s 2027 plans as suggested by his supporters on X.
Also, state governors appoint and control the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs), which conduct local government elections. This ensures that the outcome of local government elections will always be tied to a governor’s wish. And since local government administration is governed by state laws, a governor can also appoint caretaker committees to run the council on his behalf, or, outrightly, manage them directly from his office. A governor in the north central region is on record as having managed LGs in his state, as the sole administrator, for five years. It thus means that the constitution’s failure to explicitly prohibit caretaker committees allowed governors to dissolve elected council governments and appoint loyalists at will. This too violates democratic principles.
The governors have bared their fangs and have literally arrested the implementation of the Supreme Court ruling. Anambra state’s 2024 LG Law, which mandates joint accounts, effectively circumvents the ruling. Many states also have laws that require LGAs to contribute to state initiatives, and these are deducted through the joint accounts before disbursement. Therefore, allowing the ruling will undermine their authority over their states because whoever controls the funds, controls the political mechanisms and processes. Taking that away from them is akin to eroding the foundations upon which they stand. It will strip them of political control of their states and make them become puppets of local government chairmen and councilors –there have been instances where ward chairmen of political parties sacked national chairmen of their parties.
Other News
However, the failure to get funds directly to the local governments has profound repercussions on grassroots development. They will stagnate. Roads, schools, and clinics will fail. Rural poverty will persist as LGs will remain unable to fulfill their roles in agriculture and sanitation. This will also exacerbate inequality. Diverted funds will fuel gubernatorial excesses and erode public confidence in government. Democratic participation will wane as manipulated local government elections will deepen voter apathy and weaken federalism practice. Economically, underutilized allocations hinder growth and could fuel unrest, as citizens blame local government administrations for failures actually caused by governors’ withholding of their funds.
It was for some of these reasons that the 2014 National Conference resolved to end the debate over LG autonomy by recommending that local governments be delisted from the constitution, as a tier of government, for the purposes of the sharing of the federation revenue. The conference had upheld argument that the sharing of federation revenue between the federal and state governments would create a new framework for states to manage their local governments in ways they deem best for their own growth. This also suggests that the sharing formula of the federation fund will be reworked to ensure that states get the lion’s share. The reasoning behind this was that the states will have more to worry about as the creation, funding, and regulation of the tenure of local government chairmen will become state affairs. This will be followed by a restructuring that will divest the state of some developmental functions, which will become the responsibility of the councils.
Get my drift! Local government autonomy refers to the ability of local councils to govern themselves independently, managing their finances, administration, and policy decisions without undue interference from state governments. Local governments were established to bring governance closer to the people. But they have largely failed, leading to underdevelopment, corruption, and a disconnect between citizens and their leaders. Their failure is tied to the control of governors over their funds and executives, despite legal safeguards and the Supreme Court decision. The inter-ministerial committee set up to ensure the effective implementation of the ruling is also grossly ineffective. At the base of this failure is the politicization of the need for financial autonomy for local governments and the Supreme Court ruling.
Recall that the direct funding of local governments occurred between 1999 and 2002 but was stopped afterwards. Attempts in 2013 and 2017 to restore the autonomy through constitutional amendment failed to powerful lobby mounted by governors. States assemblies voted against it too. Proposals to abolish SJLGA persist. So too with proposals to empower INEC to conduct local government elections, which I doubt will solve the problem of governors hijacking the LG electoral process. In all, the governors show how powerful they are against these reforms. However, Nigerians would like to see these changes happen again. But for them to happen, they cannot be used as a tool to coerce or arm-twist governors for the 2027 presidential election as expressed in the X tweet referred to above. They can work if only they are traded and communicated as policies for the effective development of Nigeria from the grassroots. Therefore, revisiting the 2014 national conference decision on local governments may provide a way out of the woods.
