The news of the Supreme Court pronouncement on the financial relationship between state governments and local governments hit everyone like a thunderbolt—the various tiers of government and public affairs enthusiasts, those who pre-occupy themselves with public affairs. Private citizens who occasionally reflect on matters of this nature only in their closets because of its over-arching implications cannot be indifferent. The judgment is seen as weaning off, indeed freeing local governments from the apron strings of the state governments. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional rights and obligations of local governments, rights state governments had glossed over all of the 25 years since the take off of the Fourth Republic in 1999. They will now have financial autonomy to fulfill statutory obligations to the people in their localities. 

With the Supreme Court ruling last week which lawyers would say has become a case law, financial share of statutory allocations for local councils will be going to them straight from the Central Authority. Governors are divested of power to dissolve elected local council assemblies. Hitherto, a governor could just wake up from a bad dream and send a local government council packing at his whims and caprices and replace the elected officials with handpicked caretakers who owe no allegiance to the community, but to their appointers, the governors. Because such sack sends cold shivers down their spine, local government chairmen advise themselves accordingly. Thus, they became no more than prefects owing their loyalty only to the governors. The result has been that the share of revenue to the councils has been wooly or at best what the state executives dimmed fit, not what councils may statutorily be entitled to collect to develop and maintain their communities. All that is shrouded from the public gaze and enquiries. Doubts then arise in the minds of the public on whether local governments ever have budgets at all. The doubts trigger speculations that in cases there have been allocations councilors, chairmen and officials just gather to share the revenue. True or false, that has been the low esteem in which the councils have been held and the contempt the state authorities have been assailed over their relationship with the local councils. Ask anybody, it is as if local governments do not exist in Nigeria. After Ademola Adeniji Adele, I do not know the name of the chairman of Lagos City Council. In his days Adeniji Adele could be mistaken for the governor of Lagos State. After Chief Michael Adekunle Ajasin, I don’t know the names of the chairmen who had mounted the saddle at Owo in succession to him since 1978. Can it ever be forgotten that Dr. Abubakar Ibiyinka Olorun-Nimbe and Ganiyu Olawale Dawodu were at different times chairmen of Lagos Town Council, Dawodu on the platform of Action Group and Dr. Olorun-Nimbe, on the platform of NCNC? Each would pass as governor of Lagos State in these modern times. What with the Administration that transformed Lagos, building what was then referred to as New Lagos, (Surulere)–the medium and low cost houses there, and which provided public buses with the inscription LMTS,(Lagos Municipal Transport Service) among a string of legacies. In the First Republic, local councils were more visible. They built schools, they paid teachers; they constructed roads. They had Native Authority Police Force (NAPF). 

Last week, the Supreme Court rose admirably to sanitize the hinderances and inadequacies that have bedeviled local government administration in the country. The government of a state and local governments sharing the same umbrella are henceforth to work collaboratively, yet independent of one another. The governors have generally expressed support for the Supreme Court judgment although the last may not have been heard from them. The chairman of their Forum, AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, Governor of Kwara State, said he and his colleagues would study the judgment and come back. The Governor of Oyo State, Seyi Makinde, could hardly contain his displeasure. He is setting up a committee to look at the judgment. Other fears have been expressed. Former Governor of Delta State, James Ibori, sees the Federal Government remitting money directly to accounts of the local government councils as a set-back in the nation’s march to true federalism. Viewing it as dangerous, he believes very strongly that the judgment adds to the burden of over-centralization of government at a time there is a loud clamour for loosening up and upholding the principles of federalism. 

He refreshes our memory with sections of the Constitution with particular reference to Section 162 (6). This states as follows: “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 from the Government of the State.” Ibori then said: “The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The Federal Government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.” He said, yes, it is wrong for states to fiddle with allocations to the Joint Local Government Accounts and he is opposed to it, but he argues, that “does not call for this death knell to the clear provisions of section 162 of the constitution.” Further in his words, “The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of the 1999 Constitution. The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the Federal Government and the states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralizes more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism. 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.”

Financial independence: “The ruling may impact the financial inependence 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”. Ibori sees a precedent being set as “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 Local Government Account. If the ruling is saying governors cannot tamper, 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.” Ibori would like the Supreme Court take another look at its decision.

Erstwhile Governor Ibori has made solid points on over-centralization of power. Given the level of our inner maturity which underpins leadership attitude to opposition views and which triggers unconscionable carpet crossing, the sort we are witnessing in Rivers State, a narrow demagogic leader may arise at the centre who may decide to teach a recalcitrant opposition local council a lesson by withholding its allocation in order to cripple it. But then there appears to be some in-built mechanisms to prevent abuse by the Federal executive powers on the issue. What the Constitution Section 162 (2) says is that the President is to lay before the National Assembly proposals for revenue allocation from the Federation Account following which the latter will determine the distribution formula. The tabling before the National Assembly is upon advice from the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission. The same Section, article 3 then states and I quote: “Any any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal, 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.” The process leaves little or no room for the Executive to withhold the allocation to any state, local council or a group of states and their councils. At every stage, there is input of the National Assembly. It is also pertinent to wonder if the state governors have demonstrated fidelity to the letters and spirit of the Constitution on the administration of local councils in the country.

My take, therefore, is that it is the states that brought the misfortune on themselves with the court ruling scrapping the channel for onward release of local council funds through them. They put in the way of effective local councils devices to hamstring them. If they were remitting the local council share of the revenue to them as and when due and doing so transparently, there would have been no acrimony. No one would have gone to court to bring them to an awakening. In many cases as noted by the court, the funds were withheld, not disbursed to the local councils. The governors did not take a cue from the Federal which publishes its own disbursement month after month, the amount that is shared and what goes to which tier of government. The experience over the years is that a majority of the state governors have been derelict, using funds as instrument of manipulation and power aggrandizement, thus leaving councils and by extension their communities they are expected to serve to suffer. The consequence is that there is hardly evidence of development anywhere. Because local government areas hold no promise for the youths, they flee to towns and cities where they create social problems. The governors have had 25 years to reflect on the rightness or otherwise of withholding of allocations to local councils and dissolving properly constituted councils.

Justice Emmanuel Agim said this much in the Supreme Court leading judgment: “I hold that the states’s retention of the local government funds is unconstitutional. Demands of justice require a progressive interpretation of law. It is the position of this court that the federation can pay LG allocations to the LGs directly or pay them through the states. In this case, since paying them through states has not worked, justice of this case demands that LG allocations from the federation account should henceforth be paid directly to the LGs.” 

It can also only be enheartening that no elected local government council can henceforth be dissolved by governors and only democratically elected local government councils are to be paid and not any longer caretaker committees. The Supreme Court declaration on the vexed issue is “that the state government has no power or control to keep the local government council money or funds”. The court made further declaration barring state governments from dipping hands in the local council public till what Justice Agim called “an order of injunction restraining the defendants (that is state governors) by themselves, agents or privies from spending local government allocation.”

Local government councils are the officials closest to the people in towns and villages, what political pundits are wont to call grassroots and as in other lands, their functions include establishing orderliness in localities through licensing of trucks, bicycles, wheel barrows and canoes. They are charged with construction and maintenance of roads, streets, street lightings, drains and other public highways, parks, gardens and open places. They are supposed to be in charge of provision of public conveniences, sewage and refuse disposal; control and regulation of outdoor advertising, movement and keeping of pets of all description; shops and kiosks; restaurants, bakeries and other places for sale of food to the public and licensing, regulation and control of liquor. They are to collaborate with the State Government with respect to provision and maintenance of primary, adult and vocational education, the development of agriculture and natural resources, other than exploitation of minerals and in the provision and maintenance of health services. These functions are well spelt out in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitutions. In the Western World, it is Mayors that the populace looks up to for their wellbeing and security.

It is a gratifying landmark judgment which the nation had last week for which the Supreme Court and the Federal Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi deserve commendation. Fagbemi’s action was predicated on 27 grounds, asking the Supreme Court to issue an order banning state governors from unilateral, arbitrary and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected local government leaders. The Supreme Court decision points the way to civility, orderliness as well as progress and development in our local government councils. 

The galaxy of stars of the month of July in our firmament

I woke up, turning my gaze up to scan the firmament. What did I see? Bright stars, all, in the month of July. Consider the list, all beaming their rays of their shine to our world. Professor Wole Soyinka: Aremo Olusegun Osoba; Prince Henry Odukomaiya; Chief Ajibola Ogunshola; Professor Olatunji Dare; Prince Nduka Obaigbena; last but not the least, Dr. Stephen M. Lawani. The brightest of the stars and citizen of the universe, Professor Wole Soyinka; he was 90 on 13 July, last Saturday.  It was the day Osoba, ace reporter, editor, Managing Director of the Daily Times, The Herald and Sketch, two times Governor of Ogun State and now political godfather to a great many, set off the waves with the release of his latest book, ‘My Life In The Public Eye’ ahead of his great day which was last Monday, 15 July. He was 85. Unknown to many of us, the day passed quietly, marked privately with members of his family, Prince Henry Odukomaiya, we fondly call editor of editors; pioneer Managing Director of National Concord and pioneer Managing Director of The Champion, was 90 on 10 July. He had his brightest days at the Daily Times. Celebrated columnist with an exceptional mastery of the English language, Professor Olatunji Dare, turned 80 on Wednesday, 17 July. He was chairman/editorial page editor of The Guardian after which he went on lectureship tour of the United States. Before his days at The Guardian, he had been a lecturer at the University of Lagos and chairman of Nigerian Herald at Ilorin. 

Step forward Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, a very thoughtful fellow who is particular about standards and honour. He cannot tolerate carelessness, superficiality or wastage. Here is a glittering testimonial from a well-informed and hard-hitting columnist of The Punch, Abimbola Adelakun last Thursday: “He is a no-nonsense man with high professional standards. He brooked no sloppiness and approached any slack in quality with the sternness of a colonial-era village headmaster. In those days he would scan newspaper piece written by a journalist, make corrections with a red pen, put the copy in a white envelope, and address it to the writer.” In accordance with the Law of Homogeneity, he could only have worked with an executive with similar standards and taste and a workaholic. He found that fellow in Ademola Osinubi as his Managing Director while he was Chairman of The Punch. They transformed the paper and raised it to an enviable height. Ogushola turned 80 on Sunday, 14 July. 

Just as well, next is Dr. Stephen Lawani who with Ogunshola was a university scholar at the University of Ibadan. Both were awarded scholarship by the university at the same time for their brilliance. Lawani read chemistry and Ogunshola mathematics. Because he led his class Lawani got two scholarships to do his doctorate programme, one in Chemistry and the other in Library Science. He elected the latter, drawing from his love of reading. The condition attached to Library Science scholarship was that he would on completion of his studies go back to Nigeria to set up the IITA library at Ibadan. After living IITA he worked in the World Bank in Washington, United States. Lawani is author of five books, the first being Christian and Reincarnation, then Future Societies to mention just two. Lawani was 80 also last week. 

Here is the man we call the Duke! I am referring to none other than Prince Nduka Obaigbena. His credo that unrelentingly drives his spirit is He Who Dares Wins. This was the parting address Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher left with the British troops as they departed to fight Argentina over Falkland Islands in 1982, the engagement that was more known as Forklands War. Obaigbena is an exceedingly resourceful fellow. Gbolabo Ogunsanwo, the late celebrated columnist, was to say to me one day: “If you lock Nduka Obaigbena up in a room, the following day, like a Jew, he would come out with a bomber. There is nothing in his hands that he cannot turn into money if he wants to, squeezing something out of nothingness.” The testimonial says it all about a genius in the publishing world who always thinks out of the box. He is publisher of THISDAY newspaper and owner of Arise News Television which has been announced is live in 54 African countries and viewed in Europe on Sky platform. He turned 65 on Sunday, 14 July. 

I can write a full length article on each of these eminent men, who are our joy and our pride. To do so will take seven weeks, each person per week. Five of the articles will undoubtedly fall out of season. It suffices, therefore, to draw attention to their great days and to invite us all to rise, clink glasses and say hip, hip, hip Hurrah!!! The glowing thread that connects them is writing. There they are, our bright stars up in the firmament!!! Hearty congratulations to all.