What is your take on the recent Supreme Court ruling of local government financial autonomy?
Well, I have been part of the struggle for public accountability in the country, and that’s where I look at this judgement; it’s going to advance the struggle for public accountability, if Nigerians can own the system, if Nigerians are prepared to monitor the activities of local government officials, state and Federal Government officials, that’s the only way we can have political stability and security in our country.
Why should this matter get to the Supreme Court when the law is clear?
Number one, this is one of the very rare public interest litigations for public interest the attorney general has filed in court and it’s a good development but why not apologize to our colleagues; we operate in an atmosphere of impunity, there are not less than five judgements of the supreme Court and several judgements of the high courts and the court of Appeal that say that no governor has the power to dissolve elected local government officials but that occurs in a regular basis.
Today, out of 36 states in the country, 22 governors have sacked local government officials and installed caretaker committees contrary to the stipulations of section 7 of the constitution in flagrant disobedience to several judgements of the court.
Again, because the Nigerian Bar Association has not put in place a mechanism for dealing with lawyers in public office who defile the constitution or who fail to give appropriate advice to the State and Federal Government.
Is the constitution in any way ambiguous?
No. Well, there are laws that are ambiguous, but not this one. Every lawyer is aware of the provisions of section 7 of the constitution to the effect that the system of local government of Nigeria shall be by democratically elected councils. I’m not sure this was captured by the Supreme Court. Unknown to most Nigerians, section 7, I think subsection 6, provides that in every state, the House of Assembly shall make a law to facilitate the allocation of funds for local government from the state government; apart from the allocation from the federal account, the state government is also required under the constitution to make money available for the development of local government level which is why the money from Abuja shall pass through a joint state – local government account.
Now furthermore, section 7 also provides that in every state in Nigeria, the House of assembly shall make a law to enable local government to participate in the economic planning of that state. And as a matter of fact, there shall be an economic board in every state, populated by state government officials but these provisions are ignored, ignored by the State government. Again, contrary to arguments by some of my colleagues, the Supreme Court has re- written the constitution that the money is supposed to be paid into a joint State – local government account, what that provision is simply saying is that, the money would pass through the joint local government – state account to the local government.
Section 162 says the money from the Federal Government account to the joint State – local government account, from that account, it shall be paid to each of the local government accounts; what the Supreme Court said is having regards to combined sections 7 and 162, and having regards to the evidence produced by the Attorney General of the federation before the court, that these monies are being diverted; money sent to the joint account never gets to the local government but the Supreme court now ordered that henceforth, the money now goes straight to the local governments.
So is the constitution going to be reviewed?
No. Once the Supreme Court has made a pronouncement, that is the law. The constitution says local government officials shall be elected, but we now have 22 states, populated by unelected officials by caretaker officials.
Section 162 also said, the money collected from Abuja shall be paid to the local government, but when such money comes, it simply disappears, diverted or cornered. It never gets to the local government.
I have an instance, and I’m not sure whether the attorney general referred to it. A few years ago, the London Paris Club fund was meant for local and state governments but in many states, the local government never got the money. Some governors gathered in Abuja and directed their accountants to pay the money into nominated accounts. And that was how the money was diverted and the EFCC is investigating this diversion. It’s not in the interest of the governors or the country that money meant for local government development is diverted.
What is your reaction to former governor James Ibori’s comment on the ruling?
With profound respect to Chief James Ibori, I think his argument is a bit contradictory. In the 50s, in the post-colonial era, nobody was going to Abuja to collect money, every region depended on its own resources, those were the golden era of Cocoa in the West, ground nuts in the North, Palm kernel in the East. But today, everybody goes to Abuja, it’s a distorted Federalism, so you can’t collect money from the central purse, money likely made from the Niger Delta, when it gets to your state and you are meant to give allocation for the local government to them, you suddenly realized that this is against the spirit of true federalism. It’s contradictory. I support the establishment of local government by the state government, we have to review the revenue allocation formula, we have to review the entire structure of the country, but for now, what does the law say as opposed to what the law should say?
Is that not interference in local government administration by the Federal Government?
No, the House of assembly shall make the law for the administration of the local government; the local governments were created by decree 24 of 1999. When it suits a few members of the political class, the constitution becomes a different legal document but when you’re now asked to practise it and operationalize it, oh we now remember this is not a federalism, it’s not true federalism. So, what is important at the end of the day is how to account for the resources of the country.
“The constitution says local government officials shall be elected, but we now have 22 states, populated by unelected officials by caretaker officials”
What is the quality of people at the local government and accountability mechanism and infrastructure?
First, the judgement can be said to be the beginning of a long drawn battle (political and legal battle). As I said earlier, today, out of 36 states governors, 22 of them run caretaker committees, appointed by governors, so nothing stops the members of those caretaker committees even when they’re paid the money directly, nothing stops them to say, sir, this is the money, what do we do with it?
Secondly, in the remaining 14 states, the elections conducted by the state independent electoral Commission are the worst elections in Africa. Today, there is no serious opposition in any state participating in any local government election because the results are already known and pre- determined. So, there is no need to waste your money, time and energy. They already know themselves.
The candidates of the ruling party both as chairmanship and councillor would be declared by the State electoral commission so that nobody raises a query at the end of the month when the money comes. So, this shall not continue. So, for the people of Nigeria, I think this is the opportunity to reposition themselves to ask questions at the grassroots level, if the chairman wants to risk his liberty by handing the money meant for the local government to somebody, too bad for him, because at the end of the day, he or she would be held to account and that’s why Nigerians should take advantage of the judgement of the supreme court to begin to ask for the budget of each local government.
What happens to the salaries of local government workers, what happens to the money, I think this judgement has given us opportunity, because right now, we only discuss the budget of the Federal Government, we don’t discuss the budget of the state government including that of Lagos which is the 5th economy in Africa.
So, I think this judgement is a challenge to Nigerians to demand for the budget of each of 774 local governments. I will also suggest because the Supreme court ordered that the judgement is with immediate effect, what that means is, the ALGON would collate the accounts of the 774 local government and submit them to the accountant general of the federation so that with effect at the end of this month (July), money meant for local government would go directly to them.
What then happens to the provisions of Section 162, which talks about the creation of the states and the Federal Government?
This battle actually started in 2004, when the president of the country, President Olusegun Obasanjo, ordered the funds of local governments in Lagos to be confiscated on the grounds that the Bola Tinubu administration created new local governments.
Actually, it was directed at about four state governments but it was only Lagos that stood its ground and won the case in the Supreme Court that the president has no powers to order the confiscation of the statutory allocation of local governments in Lagos State, but the judgment didn’t say that state governors shall have the power to seize the money which has been the case.
Again in 2005 or thereabout, the National Assembly made a law for monitoring local government funds in the country by appointing monitoring committees. Again, the state government went to the court and all the state governments, the case of attorney general of Abia State and Attorney general of the federation and the Supreme Court said that the Federal Government had no power to monitor the funds meant for local government because the local governments are democratically elected.
So what we now have this time is that since 1999, money meant for local governments has been diverted in the majority of the states in the country. This was what informed the decision of the Federal Government this time around to ask the Supreme Court to intervene and the Supreme Court has intervened. It is now left for the Nigerian people to actualize terms of the judgement for the benefit of our people.
Does that money still go into that joint account?
No what the Supreme Court is saying is that, the money was supposed to sit in the joint account, it was supposed to pass through the joint account because in that joint account, If you read section 162 and 7 of the Constitution, the money being allocated to the local government by the state government should also go to the state account but this time around, the state government does not allocate any money to local governments. So, what is the purpose of putting that money in that account, hence the supreme Court has said, having regards to both sections by the combined effect of section 7 & 162 of the constitution, local governments shall henceforth have their money directly paid to them from the Federation account.
What is the possible interference by the Federal Government on local government affairs?
No, no, that would not be possible. Again, as I said, there are two judgements, Attorney General of Lagos State, Attorney general of Abia State against the Federal Government: where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot touch the money meant for local governments in Nigeria. So, what is going to happen now? It’s not that the Federal Government would decide what should go to a local government. The link between the local government and the Federal Government is not about bypassing local government, but money meant for the local government from the Federal Government shall be paid to them directly, that’s all. It is not that the Federal Government would now have the power to touch the money, to seize or divert the money.
When you to look at section 162(6), it says create a joint state and local government account, but section 7 says, once the money gets into that account, it shall be paid to the local government, it does not say the money would be kept or diverted or spent at the joint account level, it shall go to the local government and what the Supreme Court has said is, in view of abundant evidence, that this money is been diverted from the joint state – local government account, let it go to the local government directly in line with the letter and spirit of section 7 and 162 of the Constitution.
