Following the Supreme Court’s judgement granting financial autonomy to the 774 Local Government Areas in the country yesterday, the apex court held that it is illegal and unconstitutional for governors to continue to receive and seize funds allocated to the benefit of LGAs in their states.
According to the court, the “dubious practice” which is going on for over two decades, is a clear violation of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Governor Charles Soludo of Anambra State and his Cross River State counterpart, Senator Bassey Otu in reaction to the verdict yesterday, said they have accepted the verdict in good faith
Professor chukwuma Soludo in an interview wth journalists stataes that while he respects the Supreme Court as the final authority and highest court in the land, he believes local government autonomy resources should work for the people. in the interview the Anambra state governor said “the Supreme Court is supreme, and once they have spoken, they have spoken. I understand the Governors’ Forum is meeting tonight to study the judgement. I haven’t seen the document yet but I believe we need resources to reach the grassroots and promote accountability in the utilization of public resources at all levels,”said the governor.
Asked about the supreme court judgement that only elected local chairmen will access the fund , The Anambra state Governor acknowledged that Anambra State has not had local government elections in a while. “I promised the people of Anambra that we would have local government elections in my inaugural speech. We’ve just passed the Independent Electoral Commission law of Anambra State and are putting together the institutions to organize that,” he said, adding that there has been lingering litigation that stopped local government elections in Anambra state the past.
He reiterated his commitment to having a democratic system at the local government level. “I’m a believer in having a democratic system. I sworn an oath to that and i am committed to it said the the former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor
Governor Bassey Otu, in his statement has expressed approval and acceptance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on local government autonomy, stating that it has been received in good faith. “Nigeria is a democratic country, and we know very well that President Tinubu and the renewed hope agenda is a democratic one.
Emanuel Agim, the Supreme Court further held that no House of Assembly of any state has the power to make laws that could in any manner, grant governors the right to interfere with statutory allocations meant for the council areas.
Stressing that the law mandated that LGAs must be governed by democratically elected officials, the Supreme Court ordered that forthwith, funds meant for councils must be directly paid to them from the federation account
While acknowledging that the court’s ruling, which declares unelected caretaker administrations unlawful and unconstitutional, is not novel, Akume notes that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this stance in previous rulings.
Also reacting is the former Governor of Abia state and the senator representing Abia North, Orji Uzor Kalu, He said: ‘’the Supreme Court judgement is one that should be hailed and applauded, especially for the courage and independence shown by the judiciary.
Reactions of some persons on the supreme court verdict.
A public policy analyst, Mr Sesugh Akume, has expressed concerns over the Supreme Court’s decision to effectively nullify and rewrite section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, deeming it a “dangerous precedent”.
Former Governor of Delta State chief James Onanefe Ibori in his X handle said “Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
According to the former two term Governor of the oil rich Delta state, section 162 of the 1979 constitution provides thus: ‘Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly
“Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter. (6) Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and the Government of the State.
The court’s decision in this case is an attack on real federalism. Under whatever pretext, the federal government is not allowed to meddle in the management of local governments. According to the politician from Delta, a federal system of government consists of just two layers.
“While I disagree with tampering with state-level Joint LG Account allocations, that does not necessitate the explicit provisions of section 162 of the constitution being killed off. The decision has broad ramifications, and the following concerns immediately spring to mind:
“1. Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.
“2. Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralizes more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.
“3. State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a federal system.
“4. Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this as a tool for political leverage“
5. Precedent Setting: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralized system of government over time.
“That Local Governments must be ‘democratically elected ‘ goes without saying. Yes, I agree, that’s the position of the constitution but withholding their allocation is not the way to go. It’s wrong.
“In the coming days, we will begin to fully understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision. An assault on the constitution is not the answer to fiddling with the Joint LG Account. If the ruling is saying Governors cannot temper, touch, or fiddle with the Joint Accounts, that’s fine because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place.
“But asking the Federal Government to pay Local Government allocations to the account of the Local Government directly will lead to utter chaos and avoidable friction in governance.
