LG autonomy: The mess gets messier, By Zainab Suleiman Okino

The pervasive toxicity in our politics, manifesting as bad governance, corruption, and lack of transparency, has created an unaccountable ruling class. This environment threatens to further complicate an already complex situation, pushing the dream of true local government autonomy even further from reach.

When the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment on financial autonomy for the 774 Local Governments (LGs) in July, many believed salvation had finally reached the grassroots. The verdict was expected to empower LGs to make decisions and take actions without seeking approval from state governors, potentially ushering in the much-needed development to this long-neglected tier of government. How wrong we were.

The office of the Secretary of the Government of the Federation, George Akume, established an inter-ministerial committee to enforce and implement the Supreme Court’s verdict. However, recent weeks have revealed that governors have already devised ways to circumvent the potential gains. Two developments particularly stand out: the conduct of recent local government elections and Governor Charles Soludo’s counter-legislation, which cleverly undermines the financial autonomy and constitutional powers granted by the court.

The SGF committee’s mandate was clear: ensure local governments receive full autonomy to function effectively without state government interference, implementing constitutional provisions that recognise local governments as the third tier of government. The Supreme Court had also restored four-year term limits for LG chairmen and councillors, replacing the inconsistent terms previously set by governors in different states.

Moreover, the Court prohibited federal allocation to caretaker committees and deemed it unconstitutional for state governors to withhold funds allocated to LG councils. These measures were designed to make LGs more accountable and better equipped to deliver on their mandate, while enabling the electorates to hold them responsible. Yet, within this brief period, these lofty ideals have evaporated, particularly evident in the sham elections conducted at the state level. Thus, the mad rush to conduct LG elections supervised by governors was not out of their interest to promote democracy at the grassroots, but to abide by the Court ruling and further validate their tentacles over LG affairs.

The situation with local government elections is equally troubling. Governors who conducted LG elections in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling against caretaker committees have effectively stifled opposition. Using State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) as tools, they have manipulated elections to favour their parties.

Governor Soludo’s approach is particularly concerning. He sought to compel local governments to remit a portion of their federal allocations into a state-controlled consolidated account for “general services” …and “to remit a portion of their federal allocations into a consolidated account to be controlled by the state government.” This is antithetical to the Supreme Court ruling, which made financial independence the essence of its verdict. This revisionism turns logic on its head. During the bill’s assent, Governor Soludo argued that full autonomy for LGs would create chaos, stating, “absolute autonomy to the 774 local government areas in the country is an impossibility. In fact, it’s a recipe for humongous chaos.”

His Commissioner for Information, Law Mefor, further defended this position with a remarkably condescending statement about the need to “safeguard” local government finances from young chairpersons who might “play around” with their priorities. Such rhetoric portrays the state governor as the sole authority capable of directing local affairs, treating elected officials as subjects rather than leaders, making observers wonder when Governor Soludo became the only philosopher king with the capacity to think straight. This is unfair on Anambra, a state so gifted with smart and intelligent people.

The situation with local government elections is equally troubling. Governors who conducted LG elections in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling against caretaker committees have effectively stifled opposition. Using State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) as tools, they have manipulated elections to favour their parties. The result is far from democratic: 36 governors continue to oversee the destinies of 774 local governments and their millions of residents. How can hand-picked LG chairmen oppose their benefactor-governors’ potential diversion of allocations? The governors’ conduct is in tandem with the general perception that they are dictators who would rather give handouts to local government chairmen than challenge them to prudently utilise their allocations from the federation account for the benefit of their people, and free them (governors) from the accusation of non-performance.