BY IBRAHEEM ABDULRASHEED DAMILARE, (DAMILARE DE-ICON) AND OYINLOYE TITUS OLUWASEUN
Abstract
This article critically examines the development of local government autonomy in Nigeria. It emphasizes a recent Supreme Court judgment that impacts the financial and administrative independence of local governments. It traces the historical antecedents of local governance from pre-colonial times to post-independence. It highlights challenges within Nigeria’s federal systemic structure.
It analyzes constitutional provisions, court interpretations, and the implications for grassroots democracy.
The Supreme Court ruling, which requires direct funding to local governments and bans caretaker committees, is discussed for its potential to change the state-local power dynamic. Comparisons with federal systems in the U.S. and Switzerland provide global context.
Introduction
As it is known, local government, also referred to as the grassroots government, is the closest government to the people. It plays a crucial role in fostering community development and provides the people with access to be actively involved in governance. It is the arm of government that brings that government closer to the people.
The local government is responsible for implementing policies that directly impact communities, addressing the specific needs and challenges faced by different local governments or communities. Furthermore, it promotes inclusivity and participation in governance, among other functions.
Throughout history, local government administration has undergone significant transformation. During the pre-colonial era, it served as an extension of control for colonial rulers. In the post-independence era, however, more autonomy has been granted to local governments. This evolution and transformation in local governance demonstrates a commitment to responsive governance and sustainable community development, focusing on addressing the unique challenges of each community.
Let’s take a quick tour as we unravel the layers of changes local governance has undergone throughout history.
Pre-Colonial Era
During the pre-colonial era, Nigeria had a well-defined system of local government deeply rooted in traditional governance. These systems varied across different regions, reflecting the diversity of the culture, customs, and traditions of the Nigerian people. Traditional governance relied on collective decision-making, with respected leaders representing community interests and ensuring active participation in local governance.
Chiefs and traditional rulers played crucial roles during this period. They were responsible for maintaining law and order, resolving disputes, and preserving cultural values and traditions. Community-based decision-making processes were a hallmark of this era, promoting inclusivity and strengthening community bonds.
These traditional governance systems laid the foundation for the evolution and transformation of local government administration in Nigeria, setting the stage for the changes that would follow in the colonial and post-independence periods.
Colonial Era
The colonial era in Nigeria introduced the system of indirect rule, employed by British colonial administrators. Under this system, traditional rulers served as intermediaries between the colonial government and local communities. The primary objective was to maintain dominance and control over Nigeria with minimal manpower and resources. Policies made by the British were implemented and enforced by traditional rulers within their communities.
During this period, Native Authorities were established and appointed by the colonial masters, tasked with administering local affairs. Although this provided a formal structure for local government administration, the real power remained with the colonial authorities. The Native Authorities were heavily influenced by the British, who held ultimate decision-making authority, particularly concerning the allocation of resources.The colonial masters played a significant role in shaping and reforming local government in Nigeria. The introduction of Western-style bureaucracy and administrative procedures had a profound impact on the functionality of local government.
However, despite the establishment of Native Authorities, their autonomy was limited, as final decisions and approvals still rested with the colonial powers.
These dynamics during the colonial era significantly shaped the evolution of local government in Nigeria, laying the groundwork for the changes that would follow in the post-independence period.
Post-Colonial Era
On October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained its long-awaited independence from British colonial rule, marking a significant turning point in local government administration. Following independence, local governments began to play a larger role in providing services and promoting grassroots development.
In 1963, Nigeria adopted a federal system with four regions, leading to a decentralized governance structure. Each region had its own constitution and exercised control over certain aspects of local government administration within its jurisdiction.
However, in 1966, the military seized power and dissolved the regional governments, resulting in a major setback for local administration. Nigeria then operated a centralized federal system, and local governments lost their autonomy, facing significant interference from the central government.
A turning point came in 1976 when the federal government implemented a series of local government reforms aimed at restoring some level of autonomy. One of the most significant reforms was the introduction of the Local Government Reform Decree, which established local government councils as the third tier of government in Nigeria. These reforms granted local governments authority over key areas such as education, health, agriculture, and infrastructure development.
In 1999, the creation of the State Joint Local Government Account System (SJLGAS) by Section 162 of the 1999 Federal Constitution of Nigeria was intended to facilitate rural development through the effective supervision and distribution of revenue accruing to local government councils from the federation account. However, under this system, state governments controlled and managed local government funds, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability in local government administration. This dependency on state governments for financial resources limited the ability of local governments to effectively serve the needs of their communities.
These developments in the post-colonial era significantly influenced the evolution of local government in Nigeria, shaping its current structure and functionality.
Impacts of the Supreme Court Judgement on the autonomy and powers of Local Governments – Critically Examination
➢ Financial Autonomy:
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, pursuant to Section 230 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, invoked its original jurisdiction to hear a case filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (Case No. SC/CV/343/2024). In a landmark ruling, the Court affirmed that local governments must now receive their allocations directly from the Accountant General of the Federation, bypassing state governments.
For decades, local governments in many states have been crippled by governors seizing their federal allocations and releasing only a fraction of the funds. This practice has allowed governors to exert absolute control over local governments. In a unanimous decision, Justice Emmanuel Agim, who delivered the lead judgment, held that local governments across the country should, from Thursday, receive their allocations directly from the Accountant General of the Federation. He further declared that it is illegal and unconstitutional for governors to receive and withhold funds allocated to local government areas (LGAs) in their states.
The Nigerian Constitution ordinarily permits the federal government to disburse funds to local governments either directly or through state governments. However, as Justice Emmanuel Agim noted, “There is a demand for justice that requires a progressive interpretation of the law.” The Court observed that paying funds directly to state governors has not been effective and has crippled the powers of local governments.
The Court issued several injunctions, including: “An order of injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants from collecting funds belonging to the local government councils when no democratically elected local government councils are in place,” and “An order that henceforth no state government should be paid monies standing to the credit of the local government councils.”
This ruling significantly strengthens the financial independence of local governments and prevents state governors from withholding funds. As a result, local governments nationwide will now be able to repair schools, pave roads, and pay workers. Human Rights Activist Femi Falana commented, “The judgment has to be studied by the governors so that everyone will appreciate that what the Supreme Court has done is to promote public accountability at the grassroots level.”
With this judgment, the allocations sent to local governments will be transparent, allowing them to be held accountable and to provide essential services without excuses.
➢ Injunction Against State Interference: The Supreme Court issued an injunction preventing state governments from collecting or managing funds belonging to local governments, especially when no democratically elected local government councils are in place. As delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim: “An order of injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants from collecting funds belonging to the local government councils when no democratically elected local government councils are in place.” He also stated, “An order that henceforth no state government should be paid monies standing to the credit of the local government councils.”
This injunction significantly limits state governors’ influence over the financial allocations intended for local governments. It should be noted that state governments cannot encroach on the constitutionally delimited functions of the Local Government, as upheld in the case of Knight Frank and Rutley (Nig.) Ltd v AG Kano State. In this case, the court reaffirmed the autonomy of local governments, emphasizing that any interference by the state government in the constitutional duties and financial affairs of local governments is illegal and unconstitutional. The decision reinforced the principle that local governments must be allowed to operate independently, free from undue state interference, particularly in matters relating to financial administration.
➢ Strengthening Constitutional Provisions: The recent Supreme Court ruling reinforces the constitutional mandate for a democratically elected local government system. The court emphasized that any deviation from this mandate, such as the imposition of caretaker committees, is a violation of the constitution. Specifically, Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the establishment of democratically elected local governments. This section relates to the offices of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Local Government Council, both of whom must be Nigerian citizens and at least 25 years of age.
Additionally, Section 14 of the Lagos State law stipulates that a candidate for these offices must have an education equivalent to at least a School Certificate and must be a member of a political party, which must sponsor the candidate. A candidate for either of these offices is disqualified on the same grounds as a member of the State House of Assembly under Section 289 of the 1999 Constitution.
Moreover, the Supreme Court mandated that the four-year term granted to executives should also apply to all local government chairmen nationwide. This ruling has sparked discussions about who should conduct elections for local government positions: the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or the state electoral commissions?
Professor Charles Obot, a broadcast journalism scholar, argues that state electoral commissions should be disbanded and that INEC should take over the responsibility for conducting local government elections. Legal experts have also pointed out that while the judgment focused on financial autonomy for local governments, it did not address who should conduct local government elections—an issue that needs urgent attention. Granting INEC this responsibility would ensure full autonomy for local governments and allow the people to freely choose their local leaders.
Kwara State People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Chairman, Babatunde Muhammed, noted that the judgment was long expected. He highlighted that Kwara State has not held a council election in the last five years, stating, “In Kwara State now, for the past five years, our highly respected Governor Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq’s government has refused to conduct local government elections, and you can see what we are saying.”
➢ Abolition of Caretaker Committees: The Supreme Court has declared that the appointment of caretaker committees to replace elected local government executives is illegal. This judgment mandates that states must ensure democratic governance at the local government level, reinforcing the importance of elected councils.
In Akinpelu v AG Oyo State, the learned trial judge explicitly stated: “a fortiori, the setting up of a caretaker committee to replace a democratically elected council is clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires.” This position is further supported by the case of Balogun v AG Lagos State, where the court construed the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Additionally, the case of Etim Akpan & Ors v Hon. Peter Umah & Ors.(2002) FWLR (Pt 110)1820.
Further affirmed that the creation of a caretaker committee in place of a democratically elected council is void ab initio, based on the provisions of Section 7(1).
On May 7, 2021, the Supreme Court, in two separate judgments, declared the dissolution of elected local government administrations in Katsina and Oyo states by their respective governments illegal and unconstitutional. However, instead of retracing their steps and reinstating the local government administrations, these state governments appointed caretaker committees.
Sections 162(6) and (8) of the 1999 Constitution pertain to the distribution of revenue to local governments and reinforce the principle that funds should be managed by democratically elected local government councils. While the joint account between state and local governments is mentioned in these sections, it is implied that funds should be disbursed to councils that are legally constituted through democratic elections, not to caretaker committees.
By declaring caretaker committees illegal, the Supreme Court has effectively ended the common practice where governors dissolve elected councils and appoint their allies to temporarily manage local governments. This ruling ensures that local governments remain accountable to the people who elect them, rather than to the governors who appoint them, as has been the case in many states.
APPLICATION OF RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND CASES
The constitutional guarantee of local government existence is explicitly provided by section 7(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. This section mandates that the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is guaranteed under this Constitution, though it is also clear from the provision that the creation, establishment, structure, and functions of local governments are within the exclusive powers of the state government. This was affirmed in Attorney General of Ogun State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 232, where the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has no constitutional authority over the establishment or operation of local governments, reaffirming that such power lies solely with the states.
This judgment reinforced the dependent status of local governments on state governments.
The First Schedule to the Constitution lists the territorial boundaries of Local Government Areas (LGAs), further clarifying their existence. This means that while the Constitution acknowledges LGAs as administrative units, they are not autonomous from state governments.
Additionally, section 162(3) provides for the distribution of public revenue between the three levels of government, stating that the amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the Federation Account should be distributed to them through the State Joint Local Government Account (SJLGA). However, the structure of the SJLGA has made local governments financially dependent on the state governments, further weakening their autonomy. This position was supported by the Supreme Court in Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt.904) 1, where it was held that while states have the right to create local governments, the federal government cannot pay allocations directly to these newly created LGAs until they have been constitutionally recognized through an amendment by the National Assembly.
Section 3(6) enumerates the number of local government areas in Nigeria and lists them in the First Schedule. This provision hampers the state’s power to create additional LGAs, as any alteration to this section requires a constitutional amendment. This is a significant barrier to effective local governance, as states wishing to adjust their local government structures are constitutionally barred from doing so unless the National Assembly approves the changes. This was central to the decision in Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation (Supra), where the Court held that the newly created local governments in Lagos were inchoate and not constitutionally effective because they had not been ratified by the National Assembly.
Furthermore, section 7(6) and section 162(5)(6) which mandate allocations to local governments directly from the Federation Account, have created a system that is ripe for abuse. This arrangement is often politically manipulated to favour regions with more LGAs, as observed in Attorney General of Ogun State v. Attorney General of the Federation, where it was argued that the federal government disproportionately Favoured certain regions in allocating funds to LGAs. This arrangement underscores the necessity of reviewing or repealing these sections, as they undermine the ability of state governments to effectively manage their local government councils without undue federal interference.
Moreover, section 88 of the Constitution grants the National Assembly powers to conduct investigations into matters within its legislative competence, including the financial dealings of local governments. A similar power is granted to the State House of Assembly under section 128. This dual oversight from both federal and state legislatures further undermines local government autonomy, as their actions can be subject to scrutiny and intervention from both levels of government.
The State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) is responsible for conducting and supervising local government elections, as affirmed in Attorney General of Abia State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264 SC.
The requirement for voter registration to be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as provided in section 153(1)(f) and paragraph 11, item E of the Concurrent Legislative List, complicates the local government electoral process. Although local government elections are conducted by the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs), they rely on voter registers maintained by INEC, a federal body.
This setup often delays the electoral process, as highlighted in Akanor v. Lagos State Electoral Commission (1979) LPELR-16140(SC), where a failure to use an INEC-updated register led to the nullification of local government elections conducted by the Lagos SIEC. This case illustrates the federal intrusion into local government matters, calling for a review of these provisions to restore local control over voter registration and local elections.
In Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation confirmed that the financial autonomy of local governments is limited due to their reliance on allocations from the state-controlled SJLGA.
The Court made it clear that while local governments are entitled to a share of national revenue, such allocations must pass through the state government, further diminishing any financial independence local governments might claim. Additionally, the court held that neither the federal government nor state governments could withhold funds meant for local government councils.
These constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations clearly establish that while local governments are constitutionally guaranteed, they are not autonomous.
Local government autonomy in Nigeria involves allowing local governments to operate independently, manage local issues, and provide services tailored to their communities. Originating from British law, it aims to empower local citizens and enhance democracy. Despite its benefits, such as reducing central government strain and improving service delivery, local autonomy in Nigeria faces limitations. Central and state governments often control local policies through financial means, undermining true independence.
Comparatively, while the U.S. grants local powers through state constitutions and Swiss local governments enjoy constitutional autonomy, Nigeria’s local governments remain under state control as per Sections 4(7) and 5(2) of the 1999 Constitution. Efforts to establish local governments as an independent tier of government have not succeeded, as such a move could blur federalism principles by intertwining local and national roles.
Here are the additional points in paragraph form:
A significant constraint in the Nigerian Constitution is found in Section 3(6), which prescribes a fixed number of local government areas and their boundaries. This rigidity, specifying 768 local governments and six area councils, impedes states’ ability to create or reorganize local government areas without amending the Constitution. Such inflexibility hinders states from adapting local governance structures to better suit their needs. It is recommended that this section be removed to allow states greater autonomy in local government creation and restructuring.
Another issue pertains to the allocation of funds governed by Sections 7(6)(a) and 162(5), which channels funds from the federation account to local governments. This system can be politically manipulated, often benefiting regions with more local governments and obstructing equitable local development. The practice of requiring National Assembly approval for new local governments, as seen in Sections 8(5) and (6), compounds this issue. This requirement, affirmed in the case of Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation (Supra) reflects federal encroachment on state powers and often results in delays and inefficiencies.
In Ukwa East Local Government v. Deputy Sheriff and Anor. Unreported Suit No. HAB/12M/2002/, it was noted that the National Assembly’s approval role for new local governments undermines the autonomy intended under Section 8(3), This rigid constitutional mandate creates barriers to effective local governance. To address these issues, it is proposed that the direct allocation of funds from the federation account to local governments be abolished. Instead, a lump sum should be allocated to state governments for distribution among local governments, thereby reducing federal control and streamlining funding.
Besides, federal control over voter registration, as specified in Section 153(1)(f) overlaps with the responsibilities of state electoral bodies for conducting local government elections. This overlap complicates the electoral process and delays local elections, as highlighted in Akanor v. Lagos State Electoral Commission (1981) 1 NCLR 51. The Lagos state electoral commission purported to conduct elections without an updated register of voters made by INEC in accordance with the similar provision under the 1979 Constitution. This action was nullified and declared unconstitutional and illegal by the court. This was the position in Lawal v. Lagos State Electoral Commission (1981) INLR 63, Ajayi v. Lagos State (1981) NCLR 94.
To promote local democracy and efficiency, it is argued that voter registration should be managed by state electoral bodies.
IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE: FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Administrative Control: The recent judgment has significantly reduced the administrative burden on state governments by prohibiting governors from dissolving elected local councils and replacing them with caretaker committees, as enshrined in Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution. This decision restores the administrative autonomy of local governments, ensuring that they are run by officials directly accountable to the electorate rather than state governors.
Human Rights Activist Femi Falana remarked, “The judgment has to be studied by the governors so that everybody will appreciate that what the Supreme Court has done is to promote public accountability at the grassroots levels.”
These ruling mandates that local government administration must be conducted by democratically elected officials, reinforcing the principle of democracy at the grassroots level. It ensures that local government decisions reflect the will of the people and promotes stability and continuity in local governance, as elected officials have fixed terms, unlike caretaker committees, which could be dissolved at the governor’s discretion.
In states like Kwara, where elections have not been conducted for as long as five years, the presence of caretaker committees has often meant that these temporary officials were more accountable to the governor than to the local community they were supposed to serve.
The new ruling ensures that local government officials will now be more accountable to their local communities, promoting transparency in governance as they answer to the people who elected them, rather than to the governor who appointed them.
Financial Control: The judgment also impacts the financial management of local governments by ensuring that federal allocations meant for local governments are paid directly into their accounts, bypassing state governments. This eliminates the practice of state governments controlling or withholding local government funds, which often led to delays and mismanagement of resources intended for local development.
The Fourth Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution spells out the functions of local governments, including the construction and maintenance of roads, gardens, streetlights, drains, public highways, and parks. Other functions include the establishment and maintenance of slaughterhouses, markets, and motor parks. By receiving funds directly from the federation account, local governments gain full control over their budgets and expenditures. This financial autonomy allows them to carry out projects that address the specific needs of their communities, leading to more efficient and effective service delivery at the grassroots level.
Local governments are now better positioned to prioritize and fund projects that will boost local development. It is important to note that state governments cannot encroach on the constitutionally delimited functions of local governments, as held in the case of Knight Frank and Rutley (Nig.) Ltd v AG Kano State. This ruling further protects the financial independence of local governments, ensuring that they can operate without undue interference from state authorities.
Conclusion
The recent Supreme Court ruling is a significant step towards local government autonomy in Nigeria, mandating direct financial allocations and banning caretaker committees. This purports to reduce political interference and improve grassroots governance. However, challenges remain due to the complex balance of power between federal, state, and local authorities. Comprehensive reforms are needed to clarify roles, ensure fair resource distribution, and strengthen local accountability. Painstaking Learning from other federal systems can guide Nigeria in achieving true local autonomy while maintaining federal principles.
References
A.G. Abia v. A.G. Federation[2002] 6 NWLR (Pt 763) 264 (SC)
Akanor v. Lagos State Electoral Commission [1979] LPELR-16140 (SC)
Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation [2004] 18 NWLR (Pt 904) 1
Attorney General of Ogun State v. Attorney General of the Federation [2002] 18 NWLR (Pt 798) 232
Balogun v AG Lagos Stat [unreported]
Etim Akpan & Ors v Hon. Peter Umah & Ors[unreported]
Knight Frank and Rutley (Nig.) Ltd v AG Kano State(unreported)
Ukwa East Local Government v. Deputy Sheriff and Anor [unreported]
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Local Government Reform Decree 1976 (Nigeria)
Secondary Sources
Adamolekun L, ‘Local Government in West Africa Since Independence’ (University of Lagos Press 1979)
Adeyemo DO, ‘Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria: A Historical Perspective’ (2005) 10(2) Journal of Social Sciences 77
Agbakoba O and Ogbonna H, ‘Local Government Administration and Development in Nigeria’ (Hurilaws 2004)
Akpan F and Ekanem O, ‘Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria: An Empirical Analysis’ (2013) 2(10) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 423
Asaju K, ‘Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria: Politics and Challenges of the 1999 Constitution’ (2010) 1(9)
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance 98
Fagbemi L, ‘Case No. SC/CV/343/2024’ (Supreme Court of Nigeria, 2024)
Ikeanyibe OM, ‘Local Government and Constitutional Federalism in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic’ (2018) 41(3) Journal of Asian and African Studies 267
Okafor J, ‘Local Government Financial Autonomy in Nigeria: The State Joint Local Government Account’ (2010) 38(2) Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance 118
Ola ROF and Tonwe DA, ‘Local Administration and Local Government in Nigeria’ (Amfitop Books 2009)
Olasupo FA and Fayomi IO, ‘Historical Background of Local Government Administration in Nigeria’ (2012) 3(14)
African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 605
Federal Republic of Nigeria, ‘Guidelines for Local Government Reform’ (Federal Government Printer 1976)
National Bureau of Statistics, ‘Annual Abstract of Statistics’ (Federal Government of Nigeria 2023)
Steytler N, ‘Local Government in Federal Systems’ (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 2009)
Watts RL, ‘Comparing Federal Systems’ (3rd edn, McGill-Queen’s University Press 2008)
Falana F, ‘Commentary on Supreme Court Judgment’ (2024)
Muhammed B, ‘Statement on Kwara State Local Government Elections’ (2024)
Obot C, ‘Proposal for INEC to Conduct Local Government Elections’ (2024)
United Cities and Local Governments, ‘Gold II Report: Local Government Finance: The Challenges of the 21st Century’ (UCLG 2010)
