Banner Online News

By Adewale Adeoye

A lot of people may have been carried away by the judgment of the Supreme Court that, in part, empowers the Federal Government to disburse funds directly to local councils

The judgment is bitter-sweet. They should weigh the immediate and long term implications.

That Local Councils should no longer be administered by caretakers is good news. That Local Government Chairmen can no longer be removed by state Governors is good news that should have been given ab initio as a moral obligation of states without necessarily resorting to the court of law.

However, there is very bad news presented as good omen in the judgment.

If we think of today, it is a good decision, but if we think of long term strategic considerations, it is essentially very bad news.

The decision that the Federal Government  will now fund Local Governments is retrogressive and a reactionary decision by the Supreme Court.

In all ramifications, it is Judicial assault on Federalism, the height of pretence to transparency.

It has hammered the very core principle of a Federal country that was the dream of our forebears.

What then is the future of restructuring when local governments will, financially remain footnotes of the Federal Government? Can we then in future conceive of Western, Eastern or Northern Regions when the local councils will have to be tied to the Federal Government?

The decision has taken away the snail from its shell; the states are now empty and vulnerable to the maelstrom of unitary manoeuvres and control, which destroys the very fabric of a plural democracy.

We ask: Should the Federal Government usurp the powers of States over their most significant cultural units?

Should the Federal Government hold in trust, disburse or have any iota of control over funds meant for local governments, which are units of the states? The answer, in all form and content is No.

With this decision, the FG has been further empowered, strengthened beyond reasonable norms of Federalism principles. The decision has cast a huge cloud on the future of restructuring and self determination in Nigeria.

It will make it more difficult for states to create local councils which armtwists the philosophy of self preservation.

The Nigerian tiny but vicious elite succeeded through Decree 34, using its military arm, to subvert Confederacy, now, in our very eyes, has employed its Judicial arm to further squeeze and muzzle Federalism through the imposition of Federal finanacial control of local councils, which in all plural societies, should be the prerogative of  States.

The decision destroys the sociology behind uniform development and puts asunder the role of State Governments to set the tune for rural political economy having been forced to hand over its higher mandate to the Federal Government

When State Governors campaign during elections, they do so in volume, of which the local councils are the most  important contents and it means the State Governors deserve the right to allocate resources to LGs based on the presumptions of its lawmakers in the chambers of each State.

When you have a state with 20 LGs and Abuja takes over the absolute right to determine the financial fortune of each of the LGs, without recourse to the State Governments, what will be left is stunted democracy and stiffled prospect of a free, democracy and  liberal society.

The argument has been that States do not empower the Local Councils  and that with funds coming directly from the Federal Government, the local governments will be greatly empowered to meet rural needs.

This is false. In the first place, the same class of politicians in the Federal, State Governments are the same at the local government levels.

Check and balance, transparency and accountability are not automatic just because the funds come directly from the Federal Government, does not mean the Local Councils will now be more responsive.

The truth is that the Federal Government that has been given the right of custody of Local Government funds is far more corrupt that State Governments. Anyone may wish to check the list of corruption on the table of the EFCC.

Making the local councils accountable to the people is the beauty of democracy. Direct funding from the Federal Government does not eliminate the problem of lack of accountability.

We have now turned the logic on its head, with local coucils now meant to account to the  far off Abuja.

Many in support of this decision do so not for the love of prosperity of locals, but for the simple reason that they believe it is an opportunity for them to become lords and capoons over local resources.

Funding of local governments directly from the Federal Government connotes that the Local Councils will now be accountable to the Federal Government, after all, he who plays the drum dictates the dance steps. This will breed crisis in the future especially when Federal powers fall into the hands of vengeance-seeking imps who may decide to seize local government funds for political and parochial reasons.

With Abuja now as the benefactor of local councils, we should now expect the Local Government Chairmen to spend more time in Abuja, in pursuit of their monthly allocations, than the time they spend in their communities.

Expect more local government chairmen relocating to Abuja after their tenure. We should also expect more rebellious postures at the local councils which might cause social and political disequilibrium in the states.

Councils not meeting obligations is an issue that can be addressed at each state, with state laws to ensure dues of LGs go to them, not that the Federal Government should usurp this power.

Local Government poor performance has more to do with lack of creativity, corruption and lack of party internal democracy than the lack of funds to implement projects.

The issue of corruption is a problem associated with the structure and superstructure of Nigeria.

Dealing with corruption demands much more practical steps

This should involve a conscious voters’ population, internal party democracy, ownership of the political parties and processes by the people and the power of the people to determine who represents them beginning at the party primaries and the prowess of the people to choose their leaders without inducements. These are deeper problems yet to be resolved than the false assumption that direct Federal allocation to Local Councils will mechanistically lift the rural councils from stupor.

This Supreme Court judgment has set back the agelong struggle of Nigerians for restructuring of the country, for self actualisation and for indigenous political, social and economic rights.

It has further built a fortified, garrison state that in its womb will yield many contradictions to the detriment of freedom, liberty and self determination in Nigeria.