The University of Warwick in the United Kingdom (UK) has awarded Cherish Daniel Markson, a Nigerian student, first prize for her exceptional performance in a three-year BA (Hons) law with social sciences degree programme.

Cherish will also receive £250 as part of the prize for her outstanding performance and a formal reception after the main graduation ceremony on July 19.

She is the daughter of Daniel Iworiso-Markson, a former commissioner for information and orientation in Bayelsa state.

In a congratulatory letter, Margaret O’Brien, director of undergraduate studies at the university’s school of law, said Markson scored the highest marks “on the most demanding of all courses”.

“You have been awarded First Prize for your three-year BA (Hons) Law with Social Sciences degree at the University of Warwick. You achieved a second-class higher division degree with an overall average of 67.3%,” the letter reads.

“This was the highest mark of all students on this most demanding course. A record of your prize-winner status will be added to your HEAR transcript.

“Your prize of £250 will be paid directly into your bank account.”

Cherish had maintained good grades before the prize.

Three years ago, Cherish, as a student at Bridge House College, Lagos, was awarded the first prize in the world award in law and high achievement in sociology by Cambridge International.

In November 2021, she bagged a prestigious award for outstanding achievement in her advanced subsidiary-level examination.

She bagged A-stars in nine of her IGCSE subjects: English, Mathematics, Biology, Geography, Literature, Business Studies, Economics, History, and ICT.

[TheCable]

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice has delivered a landmark verdict finding the Federal Government of Nigeria guilty of human rights abuses in its response to the #EndSARS protest, particularly its disproportionate use of force at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos on October 20, 2020. The ruling, issued on July 10, 2024, mandates the Nigerian government to pay a total of N10 million in compensation to each victim named in the suit.

The case, brought before the ECOWAS Court by a coalition of human rights activists and organisations, alleged severe violations of fundamental human rights by Nigerian security forces. Amnesty International also submitted an Amicus Brief, which was declared admissible by the Court. After thoroughly examining evidence and testimonies, the Court concluded that the Nigerian government's actions breached several international human rights standards, including Articles 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the African Charter on  Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Key Findings:

1. The Court found credible evidence of disproportionate use of force and violations of the right to liberty and security, assembly, free speech, and dignity. It stated that the use of force was not necessary and contravened the Respondent State’s obligations under the African Charter.
2. The Court agreed that the applicants had suffered torture at the hands of the Nigerian government. The Court found that the situation at the Lekki tollgate, where live rounds were shot into the crowd of unarmed protesters, created a situation of fear, and the Nigerian government did not present evidence refuting those allegations.
3. The Court further held that the Respondent State failed to allow and afford the Applicants their rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, therefore violating the Applicants’ rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter.
4. The government’s actions were deemed inconsistent with Nigeria's obligations under the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
5. The Court held that the quasi-mechanism set up by the Respondent State to investigate the allegations of abuse at the Lekki toll gate lacked independence and was questionable. The State, therefore, failed in its duty of effective remedy under Article 1 of the African Charter.

Compensation and Orders:

1. The Court ordered the Federal Government of Nigeria to pay N10 million each in compensation to the Applicants.
2. Additionally, the Nigerian government has been mandated to conduct investigations into the human rights abuses that occurred with a view to implementing the outcomes of said investigations. The Court has ordered the government to report to the Court in six months with an update on the compensation and progress of the inquiry. 

Reacting to the judgment, Bolaji Gabari (lead counsel for the Applicants)  stated, “This ruling is a significant victory for the #EndSARS movement, an acknowledgement that citizens’ rights were violated and abuses occurred at Lekki Toll Gate. We urge the Nigerian government to comply fully with the Court’s orders and take immediate steps to address the systemic issues identified in the judgment.”

In her reflections, Mojirayo Ogunlana, a counsel to the Applicants, said that the journey to this victory began on the 10th of December 2021. She recalled that the Nigerian Government, as Respondents in the case, failed to show up to put in a Defence until 2023, when, in its address, claimed, amongst others, that the EndSARS peaceful protest was unlawful and perpetuated by hoodlums.  She expressed joy at the closure occasioned for the Applicants and Nigerians who bore witness to the abuse and violation on the 20th of October. 

Also reacting to the judgment, Nelson Olanipekun, Executive Director at Gavel, coordinating organisation for the coalition, said, “The landmark ruling by the ECOWAS Court in favour of EndSARS victims is a powerful affirmation of justice and a significant step towards healing and accountability for the Lekki Tollgate tragedy.”

Obianuju Catherine Udeh (DJ Switch), one of the applicants, said this of the ruling, “Not once did I waver in my shared experience of the traumatic events of the 20th of October, 2020 but to sit in court and listen to the esteemed judges, based on the facts give a ruling in our favour not only reaffirms what I know and experienced but makes this one of the best days of my life since the horrific event. This judgement becomes a glimmer of hope that we can indeed head in the right direction in service of the truth and justice.”

The ECOWAS Court’s decision underscores the importance of regional judicial mechanisms in holding governments accountable and protecting citizens' rights. It also highlights the critical role of civil society in advocating for justice and human dignity.

For further information, please contact Chioma Agwuegbo at 08038458900 or chioma at chiomachuka dot com. 

Background 

On 20 October 2020, peaceful and unarmed protesters were fired at by Nigerian Security agents at the Lekki Toll Gate, Lagos state, Nigeria. This brought to a violent end the #ENDSARS protests that, beginning on the 3rd of October in Delta State, had been held across the country, calling for justice against police brutality in Nigeria. In December 2021, three victims brought a case before the ECOWAS Court, Obianuju Catherine & 2 Others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/APP/72/2021), to justice for themselves and those impacted by the violations.

About ECOWAS Court of Justice

The ECOWAS Court of Justice is a principal legal institution of the Economic Community of West African States. It serves as the judicial organ that interprets and enforces the provisions of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty, adjudicates disputes related to the interpretation and application of Community laws, and ensures the protection of human rights across the region.

Dear readers,

Our recent epistles, penned in celebration of the silver jubilee anniversary of uninterrupted democracy in Nigeria, have ignited a spectrum of reactions from you, our esteemed readers. Your distinct viewpoints are instrumental in fostering a comprehensive and vibrant dialogue.

I am deeply appreciative of those of you who, after reading and reflecting on our shared musings, have deemed them worthy of a response. Your thorough comments, often presenting alternative perspectives and endorsing or challenging our shared views, significantly enrich our ongoing discourse.

There is a (now retired) Professor of Pharmacy (a very senior senior, as we say in our world) whose command of the English Language and his love for its correct use make him a linguistic puritan who reads and responds to our epistles.

In this case, the senior Prof did not find the expression “Towards a More Perfect Democracy” easily digestible; his protest against this was the usage of the terms “more” and “perfect” in sequence.

My response to him that the expression was borrowed from the American expression “towards a more perfect union” was understood; luckily, he is also a published poet. However, it opened more shelves of reservations about America and the American system.

Please feel free to see why the epistle that followed part 2 of the “Towards a More Perfect Democracy” and titled “An Imaginary Speech by Joe Biden” was about the ongoing electoral campaign in the USA.

Contrary to what some readers assumed, the essay about the American elections was neither a diversion nor a detour from the essays around 25 years of democracy in Nigeria; rather, they are all part of the same theme and reflections on the concept of democracy.

As I have often pointed out, whilst I fully agree with the need to contextualise ideas and localise concepts, I still personally strive to ensure that the thoughts we share here are universal in outlook and durable in texture and time.

To that extent, real-life episodes like the Silver Jubilee of uninterrupted democracy in Nigeria or the election campaign in the USA become mere but valuable real-life examples of the concepts and ideas we reflect on.

Some readers have challenged me to offer my definition of democracy, which focuses on the crucial elements that make democracy what it should be, including the law and the duties and limits of government.

In reality, I have done this elsewhere and many times: I have offered my functional, process-centred, accountability-driven, and transparency-indexed definition of democracy everywhere and in every conversation possible.

Since poetry can rarely persuade a hungry lover, or can bread impress a satiated one, on this occasion, allow me to move away from my functional definition and offer an alternative inspirational definition of democracy that can match ( I believe even clearly surpass) Lincoln’s November Gettysburg 1863 speech.

My choice for a description of democracy that can, on one side, inspire and excite and, on the other side, inform and admonish is taken from a speech given by an eminent Athenian politician at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War (BC 431–404) as a part of the annual public funeral for the war dead.

In that speech, the speaker, Pericles, amongst other things, described democracy as the defining feature of his Athens and declared that:

“In Athens, we are thus:

Our government works for the most rather than the few. Our laws ensure equal justice for all in their disputes, but we never ignore merit for excellence.

When a citizen stands out for merit, then such a citizen will be recognised and invited to serve the state instead of others, not as an act of entitlement or privilege but as recognition and reward for merit and capacity. 

We do not allow their social or financial background to impede recognition and position in government. 

The freedom we enjoy is extended to our daily lives. 

We do not suspect each other and do not discriminate or disdain those around us because their way of life differs from ours.  

We are free to live as we deem suitable, but we are ready to fight off any danger. 

An Athenian citizen pays attention to their public duties and interests when dealing with personal interests, but above all, they never get into public service to fix personal interests.  

In Athens, we are thus. 

We have been taught to respect judges and the law and never to forget to stand up for the oppressed and the discriminated against.  

We have also been taught to respect those unwritten natural laws clearly written in the spirit of what is right and decent.

We do not consider those who show no interest in the affairs of the state harmless but useless because we know that though few can manage politics, we all can judge it. 

We do not consider debates an obstacle to democracy. We believe that happiness is a fruit of freedom, but freedom is a fruit of value”. 

The fact that Pericles could conceive a society and system of government over 400 years before Christ that understood the value of equality and merit, the richness of diversity, the centrality of the law and the importance of value, and the need to protect minorities says a lot about the depth of that period and culture. However, it also says a lot to those who, over two thousand years after Christ, still do not understand the essence of democracy.

Those who should know but for partisan and private interests refuse to stand for what is right even when difficult would not have been considered worthy in the Athens of Pericles.

If we want our democracy to work, the role of the law and judges must be closely monitored and evaluated.

In working towards a better democracy, we must understand that anyone who tries to exploit or manipulate the law for personal or partisan interest is one who betrays the spirit of democracy. For our democracy to move towards perfection, we must ensure that we agree that judges who betray the law are traitors of the spirit of democracy, decency and everything decorous about the commonwealth.

There is an original sin that some systems have committed, and that sin makes corruption of the bench and the law possible if not necessary.

I refer to the weak, corrupt, confusing, and corrosive cord that links the bench to politics.

Please feel free to think of the nomination of the Supreme Court in the USA and even the election of district attorneys.

What shall we say of those judges who casually disregard precedence or even give conflicting judgements in their own cases? What shall we say of those judges who recklessly intervene with injunction orders and counter judgments in cases currently treated by other courts?

What is worse, their mischief or ignorance of their position in democracy?

In a democracy, a bench totally independent of and unconnected to politics will better serve the law and justice.

Recent events in the world, thanks to access to more information, have exposed the failings of many Western countries that once stood as models of democracy. We have now discovered that no country can stand as a teacher to all. We have now discovered that we are all students who can learn from each other’s flaws and virtues on how to move to a more perfect democracy.

Join me on Twitter @anthonykila to share your thoughts, ask questions, and continue these engaging conversations.

• Prof Anthony Kila is an Institute Director at CIAPS. www.ciaps.org. He is also a regular contributor to The Frontier.

The supreme court judgement today, July 11, 2024, directing the Federal Government to pay allocations due to Local Government Areas directly to their account thereby abolishing the old practices of State-Local Government Joint Account,is timely and courageous.

What the judgement has done is more like interpreting section 162 of the Constitution, which provides for a joint State-Local Government Account. In which case, money is normally paid to state governors' accounts and then for them to disburse to the local governments for them to share. But what has been happening is that, as I noted in 2020,over three years ago, the state governors, have been behaving like ''bandits'', waylaing local governments funds along the way and thus impoverishing them leaving them with nothing to work, just a little for salary. And nothing to actually work for the people whom they represent.
I agree totally with the judgement of the supreme court to grant full financial autonomy so that money is released and paid directly to the 774 local government councils which constitute the third-tier of government,to develop their places because the LGAs are grassrooted and nearest to the people. Rather than allow overbearing state governors throw their weight around and muzzle the local governments and seize their purse,they will now allow LGs breath some air of freedom.

If you take a look at our situation, Nigeria is operating a very lopsided federation,more like a unitary system of government. Where the federal government is supposed to be a small government,it is controlling 67 items on the exclusive legislative list. That is why the federal government gets the lion share of the federation account , the lion share of the money that comes to the federation account to the tune of 52.68%. The states get 26.72% while the entire 774 local government councils in Nigeria get just 20.60% of the monthly allocation by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, RLASMC.

The question is, what is the federal government doing with almost 53% of the national income? That is because it is a government that is behemoth.That is elephantine. A government that intrudes and intervenes in areas that should not concern it at all. What is the federal government's business with licensing cars and trucks for states? What is its business with the Marriage Act, dealing with how people marry and wed in Nigeria and how they live together as husband and wife and separate or divorce? What is the federal government's business with unity schools? A whole FG operating secondary schools? What is their business? Why is the FG not allowing states generate their own power, operate their own railway stations, if they have the capacity? Why should the federal government not allow states have their own police force? Even for the local governments to have their own police force as we have in the United States and other advanced countries of the world where even tertiary institutions have their own police?

The truth is that the federal government is overbloated and overpampered. That is why it is using too much money and make the centre become too attractive,eating deep into funds that ought to be meant for the states and local government areas. The states take not only that which belongs to the states, but also waylays at source that which is meant for the local government areas. No Nation grows that way.

So, I see this judgment as epochal,having far-reaching effect because money will now be made available directly to the local government areas who will no longer be subservient, like fawning slaves to state governors. In fact, the judgement even went further to say that no state government has the power henceforth to dissolve local government areas. This is because we have been seeing cases where inspite of the provisions of section 7 of the 1999 constitution that give autonomy to local government areas, states normally go ahead and dissolve local government areas ND appoint caretaker committees for them.This is whimsical and capricious.The Supreme Court has said this can no longer go on and that henceforth, no state government should ever be able to dissolve any local government area in Nigeria for any reason whatsoever and howsoever.

The judgement is salutary, timely and regenerative. It should be upheld by all governments and people in Nigeria for better democratic dividends.I see this as victory for our wobbling democracy, even if we are far removed from true fiscal federalism where the federating units control and utilize their God-given resources while paying royalty or tax to the central government. This case is one big plus for tested court room gladiator, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation, who initiated the case at the apex court, invoking its original jurisdiction.Surely,to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war. God bless Nigeria.

A former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, has condemned the supreme court ruling on the financial autonomy of the 774 LGAs in the country.

Recall that on Thursday, the supreme court ruled that the federal government should henceforth pay allocations directly to local government councils from the federation account.

The seven-member panel of justices held that the state governments have continued to abuse their powers by retaining and using the funds meant for LGAs.

The apex court also ordered the federal government to withhold allocations of LGAs governed by unelected officials appointed by the governor.

Reacting to the judgement via a post on his X page, Ibori opined that the judgement is an assault and a setback on true federalism.

He argued that the court’s verdict contravenes section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

The former governor said the federal government “has no right to interfere with the administration of LGAs under any guise whatsoever”.

He said the ruling would have “far-reaching” implications, such as “erosion of state autonomy” and centralising “more power to the centre,” among others.

Ibori wrote, “The supreme court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“The section expressly provides thus: ‘Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and 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’.

“Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter: ‘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.

“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.

“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.

“This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.

“Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralises more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.

“State Autonomy: 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 independence 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.

“Precedent-setting: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralised system of government over time. That local governments must be ‘democratically elected’ goes without saying.”

[BusinessDay]

The Senate on Thursday rejected a bill seeking to amend the Foreign Exchange Act of 2004 to introduce provisions for the control, monitoring, and supervision of transactions in the Foreign Exchange Market according to reports from the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).  

The bill, titled “The Foreign Exchange (Control and Monitoring) Bill, 2024 (SB. 353),” was sponsored by Sani Musa (APC-Niger), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, and was first read on Tuesday, February 20. 

In his lead debate, Musa described the bill as crucial legislation intended to repeal the Foreign Exchange (Monitoring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. F34, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. 

He stated that the proposed law would regulate, monitor, and supervise market transactions and related matters. Additionally, it aimed to contribute to the sound development of the national economy by facilitating foreign transactions and maintaining a balance of international payments. 

Sen. Musa said, “The Bill seeks to stabilise the value of the currency by ensuring the liberalisation of foreign exchange transactions to maintain an equilibrium of the balance of international payments.” 

“It will also stabilise the value of the currency by ensuring liberalisation of foreign exchange transactions and of other foreign transactions by revitalising market functionality. The newly introduced clauses will enable the CBN to determine the basic exchange rate of purchase and sale of foreign exchange,” 

Rejection of the bill by members of the senate 

However, senators expressed concerns that new legislation to monitor or control the foreign exchange market, beyond the current efforts by the CBN, could be counterproductive. 

Notable senators who voiced serious reservations about the proposed law included Solomon Adeola (Chairman of the Committee on Appropriation), Tokunbo Abiru (Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Insurance, and Other Financial Institutions), and Aliyu Wadada (Chairman of the Senate Public Accounts Committee). 

Senator Ibrahim Dankwambo (APC-Gombe), for instance, argued that passing such a law would confuse Nigerians. He noted that any further regulation of the foreign exchange market should originate from the executive branch to avoid creating a crisis in the sector. 

Senator Adams Oshiomhole (APC-Edo) pointed out that the senators who had spoken had meticulously summarized and amplified the contradictions and negative implications of passing the law.

Oshiomhole believed the bill should not proceed further, as it would effectively take over the CBN’s monetary policy regulations.  

He suggested that if the executive branch wished, they could introduce a bill to further strengthen the CBN’s regulatory powers, emphasizing that such matters were not the Senate’s responsibility. 

The President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, urged Senator Musa to withdraw the proposed law for further consultations, but the senator declined. 

Sen. Akpabio then called for a voice vote to decide its approval or rejection for a second reading, and the majority of lawmakers voted against it. 

[Nairametrics]

The foremost Pan African student movement, the Progressive Students Movement (PSM), stated that President Bola Tinubu is fully in charge of the affairs of the Villa and not caged as claimed by Senator Ali Ndume.

Ndume had alleged that the president is unaware of the happenings outside the Villa, suggesting that he has been fenced off and caged.

Reacting to the senator’s comment, President of PSM, Bestman Okereafor, in a statement, said the president is fully in charge and remains the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“As progressives, PSM considers this statement from the Senate Chief Whip as diminishing and derogatory to the esteemed office of the Executive President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

He urged Ndume to propose open solutions to the security challenges and other issues facing the nation, especially in his senatorial district, noting that Vice President Shettima is also from Borno State.

“The Senate Chief Whip was insensitive to the fact that his derogatory remarks about Mr. President are harmful to the ruling APC, a party he also belongs to!”

“We are imploring President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to urgently address the myriad of issues confronting the nation, which include but are not limited to economic hardship, insecurity, unemployment, scarcity, and the unregulated sale of PMS, among several others,” he said.

[Leadership]

There is just one major debate raging in America at the moment, and that is whether Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. should continue to run for President. The 46th President of the United States who has been in office in the past three and half years, is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in the election coming up in November.

His face-off with Donald Trump, his opposite number in the Republican Party in a national debate on 27th June has raised so much dust. Most Americans believe that Biden’s performance was awful and has raised questions about his physical and mental fitness for the contest, with some suggesting he should yield the ticket to some more energetic Democrats. In this regard, Vice President Kamala Harris and California Governor, Gavin Newsom, have emerged the favourites even when they have both pledged loyalty to Biden.

Debates, especially in the US have been a constant feature of American democracy since 1960 when Senator John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and Vice President Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, engaged in a series of debates leading to the year’s polls. Not only did JFK mesmerize the electorate with his charm, he captured their imagination with his elucidation. And many say he won the election, ultimately, because of his performance in the debates.

Biden, 81 years and the oldest president in U.S. history, has been debating all his life, literally, and he knows how debates impact elections.

Today, campaigns involve public scrutiny that debates offer opportunity for, and Biden must have engaged in dozens and dozens with political opponents from 1973 to 2009 when he represented Delaware in the United States Senate. Even as a serving Senator, Biden ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008 before Obama chose him as his running mate, serving as the 47th Vice President for two terms of 8 years from 2009 to 2017 before landing the top job as the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021.

But on June 27 when he engaged former President Trump in a debate sponsored by CNN, Biden looked so ordinary and incoherent. Against Donald Trump who is 6 years younger and less experienced in political contests, he came across as a non-starter with a disastrous performance that many say may cost him re-election.

Trump was not fantastic either, with his half-lies and baseless claims, but he came across as confident and clear-headed against a sitting president that somehow appeared frightened and vacuous. Trump clobbered him and ran away with a publicly acclaimed victory. He was unsparing and bullish, even uncought in his language, but for the American citizens, especially the 51 million viewers who watched the debate, those were more pardonable than watching the President’s display marked by verbal blanks, a weak voice and sometimes getting lost midway into speeches.

And if the Democrats feel let down, the fear is palpable that a second debate, which will be sponsored by ABC on September 10, 2024, will be worse. That explains why the voices against the president have increased within the party and among his supporters generally. And despite appeals for more funding, donors have dramatically become hesitant at a time that the President’s challenger appears to be galloping ahead.

The recent Supreme Court decision on Trump’s immunity case was another sore point and the President, who criticised the judgment as a bad precedent, was obviously the loser. Smarting from that triumph, Trump has hit the streets with renewed vigor. He continues to cast the President as weak, incoherent and lacking focus. Worse still, as the person behind his ‘ judicial persecution’ of the past few months that he has somehow managed to soar above. As it is, even the multiple indictments in several US courts may have little or no fatal impact on his candidacy in the forthcoming election.

Many Americans who watched Biden, have gone to the extent of asking who really takes the big decisions at the White House. Not even the damage control efforts by former President Obama and VP Harris have helped stem the tide of criticism. Like Obama said, “bad debates do happen”, but he didn’t add that election defeats do also happen as a result. As pressure continues to mount on the President to drop out of the race, more polls now suggest Trump has continued to widen his lead and even Obama knows what that implies.

But Biden has also tried to respond with a weak assurance that he was running and would win. In the past two weeks alone, he has sent over a dozen letters to reassure his supporters and to appeal for funds to ramp up his campaign. Luckily for him, the two Democrats whose names have kept popping up have all rejected the idea of mounting a challenge against Biden and picking the Democratic ticket. VP Kamala Harris, for the umpteenth time, told Americans she was going to win with Biden, while Gavin Newsom, the California Governor who met with President Biden at the White House penultimate Thursday, said he would back Biden.

After three and half years in office, the US President has an above-average performance rating. He may decide to hold out till the end with the argument that the election would eventually boil down to his performance. That’s up to the Americans to decide. But if eventually he takes a bow as a result of the mounting pressure, it must be attributed to what has become his last debate. That will be a tragic end for a man who built a reputation over the years as a good debater both on the floor of the US Senate and in the series of election contests he has engaged in during his political career that has spanned over half a century.

First published in the Sunday Telegraph of July 7, 2024.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Thursday welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirming the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the statutory rights of local governments.

According to the president, “By virtue of this judgement, our people – especially the poor – will be able to hold their local leaders to account for their actions and inactions. What is sent to local government accounts will be known, and services must now be provided without excuses”.

President Tinubu, according to a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale, noted that one of the fundamental challenges to the nation’s advancement over the years has been ineffective “local government administration”, as governance at that level “is nearly absent”.

Re-echoing his relief over the apex court’s verdict of yesterday, the president emphasised that the onus is now on local council leaders to ensure that the broad spectrum of Nigerians living at the local government level are satisfied that they are benefitting from people-oriented service delivery.

“My administration instituted this suit because of our unwavering belief that our people must have relief and today’s (yesterday’s) judgement will ensure that it will be only those local officials elected by the people that will control the resources of the people.

“This judgement stands as a resounding affirmation that we can use legitimate means of redress to restructure our country and restructure our economy to make Nigeria a better place to live in and a fairer society for all of our people,” he stated.

President Tinubu noted that the provision of some essential amenities and public goods, such as the construction and maintenance of certain roads, streets, street lighting, drains, parks, gardens, open spaces, and other residual responsibilities, including community security, “has tottered owing to the emasculation of local governments”.

The president therefore affirmed that the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional rights and ideals of local governments as regards financial autonomy, and other salient principles, is of historic significance and further reinforces the effort to enhance Nigeria’s true federal fabric for the development of the entire nation.

He commended the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for his diligence and patriotic effort on this important assignment.

In a judgment delivered yesterday by Justice Emmanuel Agim, on behalf of the seven-member panel, the court directed the Accountant General of the Federation to pay local government allocations directly to their accounts. It declared non-remittance of funds by some states to local governments as unconstitutional.

The ruling also nullified the appointment of caretaker chairmen while mandating direct crediting of local government allocations from the federation account. 

The seven-member panel barred governors from dissolving elected local government chairmen and replacing them with caretaker committees. Funds to non-elected committees will be withheld.

The 36 state governors, represented by their attorneys general, had challenged the federal government’s action based on Section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides for a joint account for local government allocations.

However, the court dismissed this objection, emphasising that the constitutional provision should not be abused by state governors.

Meanwhile, Nigerians across different spectrum also reacted positively to the apex court’s judgement yesterday. 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Habeeb Abiru noted that while financial autonomy for local governments is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is not the court’s role to intervene if a local government and state government agree on fund management.

Also amend Constitution for INEC to conduct LG polls – Ex-Gov Ngilari

 A former of Adamawa State, Bala James Ngilari, while commending the Tinubu administration for going to court to secure freedom for the local government areas, however, advised that the federal government should work further towards Constitution amendment to move powers of conducting elections into LGAs to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), instead of State Independent National Electoral Commissions (SIECS).

“There is a reasonable possibility that people will win election based on their popularity if the election is conducted by INEC,” Ngilari said.

“The way it is now, even though the Supreme Court has given financial autonomy to LGAs, governors will continue to control their resources by ensuring that only their preferred candidates win election through the SIECs,” he said.

Speaking in the same vein, a former Deputy Governor of Benue State, Chief Stephen Lawani, said the ruling would require additional measures to make local governments functional and relevant.

Lawani also agreed that the conduct of elections into local councils should be taken away SIECS and given to INEC. He added that holding local government elections simultaneously with other political office elections would ensure the autonomy and relevance of local governments.

All institutions must be respected – Prof. Yadudu

Renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, praised the ruling as a progressive interpretation of the constitutional provision for local government autonomy.

When asked if the decision would make a significant difference in how state governments treat local governments, Yadudu expressed optimism. He said: “I anticipate that it should. All institutions should be respected and obviously it will require some adjustments here and there.” 

He emphasized that the ruling should be seen as an interpretation given in the best circumstances, not as a contradiction to Section 162(6)(7)&(8) of the Constitution, which provides for the state to maintain a joint account with the local government for the receipt of allocations.

He said: “Just like one of the justices said, it’s a progressive way of looking at the ruling. Look at it this way, there is a stipulation that the state shall maintain a joint account, but the state never puts any money from its own purse. So, you can’t say it should maintain a joint account when you yourself don’t respect it.”

Professor Yadudu emphasized that the ruling aligns with Section 7 of the Constitution, which requires a democratically elected system of government at the local level. He noted that the decision mandates the federal government and its agencies to deal with democratically elected local governments, not caretaker committees. This interpretation, according to Yadudu, goes beyond financial autonomy, addressing broader governance issues.

He highlighted the need for state laws to conform to the ruling of the Supreme Court. He also acknowledged the possibility that governors might try to circumvent the ruling but hoped that the explicit nature of the decision would prevent such actions.

On whether the Supreme Court’s decision addressed the operational challenges of the local government system, which some argue require constitutional amendments, Professor Yadudu said: “The interpretation rule to bring clarity to the relationship between the states and local government is preferable; meaning that the Supreme Court has interpreted both sections and in light of its understanding of the prevailing circumstances, feels that this is the way to go.”

He said that rather than amending the constitution, the focus should be on compliance with the ruling and the development of state laws in alignment with it.

However, E.M.D. Umukoro, Esq. said that the Supreme Court has engaged in judicial legislation.  He stated that the intention of the constitution in Section 162(5) regarding the joint account was for both the state and local government to contribute to the account and for its expenditure to be decided by state laws.

He suggested that state governments might need to return to the Supreme Court for clarification if they believe the court has overstepped its role in interpreting the law. 

It’s win-win – ALGON

The Director General of the Association of Local Government in Nigeria (ALGON), Itiako Ikpokpo, said the ruling is a win-win outcome, enabling people to hold local government chairmen accountable as funds will go directly to them.

He said: “The Nigerian people will enjoy the benefit of good governance. This has been in the clamour for a long time and it is not personal.”

He said ALGON sees the decision as a significant step towards enhancing the efficiency and accountability of local government administration across the country.

It’s victory for Nigerians – Atiku, NULGE, others

Reacting, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar described the judgment as a win for the people of Nigeria.

“The court’s ruling is a step in the right direction and a major corrective action in greasing the wheels of national development across the country,” he said.

Atiku criticized the previous policy of consolidating local councils’ revenues into state government accounts, describing it as politically motivated and detrimental to development.

On its part, the National Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) expressed similar sentiments, stating that over 50 per cent of Nigeria’s problems will be addressed following the ruling.

Ambali Olatunji, the National President of NULGE, emphasized the potential for financial integrity and development at the local government level.

In an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria, he said: “We hope there will be financial integrity at the local government levels and all financial transactions will be tracked. We will be working with anti-corruption agencies to ensure growth and development. So, we are happy and it is a fulfilment of long-awaited dreams and the struggle in the last 15 years has come to a victorious end.”

Also, the Arewa Think Tank welcomed the judgment as a victory for Nigerians and urged state governors to accept the decision in good faith.

In a statement by its Chief Convener, Muhammad Alhaji Yakubu, the group described the ruling as a means to ensure rapid development at the local government level.

Yakubu said: “It is a ‘No Victor, No Vanquished’ judgement that is meant to ensure rapid development at the local government levels because local government is an intermediary player between the federal authority and the grassroots in the country.”

Citizens outline priority

Meanwhile, citizens across Nigeria are expressing their views on how allocated funds should be utilized to enhance grassroots development.

In Benue State, Emmanuel Azege, a staff member of Ukum Local Government Council, hailed the court’s decision as a long overdue development.

“We appreciate the Supreme Court judgment,” he stated, emphasizing the need to prioritize security in Ukum, which faces significant challenges.

Azege advocated for investments in security infrastructure to address local concerns effectively. Additionally, he highlighted the importance of enhancing education through the construction of more classrooms and linking local markets with culverts, alongside upgrading local clinics.

In Kano, Musa Saleh Baba, an employee of Kano Municipal Local Government Council, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, foreseeing it as a catalyst for transformative change at the grassroots level.

Another Kano resident, Tukur Muntari echoed this sentiment, believing that direct funding would empower council chairmen to act independently and efficiently.

However, Hauwa Elyakub, a rural development expert, cautioned that while the court’s decision is commendable, systemic reforms are essential at the local government level.

She pointed out deficiencies in governance and suggested that autonomy should be accompanied by comprehensive reforms to ensure effective decision-making and accountability.

“These reforms are crucial. Improving governance practices will lay the foundation for effective utilization of financial autonomy, thereby benefiting local communities,” she emphasized.

Governors to review decision

Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo said that governors would meet to review the judgment, but emphasized the importance of resources reaching the grassroots and promoting accountability and transparency in public resource utilization.

Soludo, who briefed State House correspondents after a meeting between governors of President Tinubu, added that, “I mean, the Supreme Court is the final authority and I am a democrat. I believe in the rule of law. And once the Supreme Court has spoken, it has spoken. And I understand, I mean, tonight (Thursday), I think the Governors Forum is meeting to review this.”

He added that there is a need for resources to reach the real grassroots to ensure people’s money works for them at all levels of government.

When asked about the situation in Anambra, where litigations have hampered local government elections, Soludo assured that efforts are ongoing to address these issues and conduct necessary elections. He reiterated the commitment to promoting transparency and accountability in public resource utilization, which is essential for lifting the burden of the common man.

[DailyTrust]

The governorship candidate of the Labour Party, LP, during the 2023 general election in Enugu State, Hon Barr Chijioke Edeoga has hailed the Supreme Court judgement which granted full autonomy to the local government areas

DAILY POST reports that the apex court on Thursday ended the governors grip on the finances of the local government areas.

The development has been receiving applause from across the country.

In a statement he personally signed on Thursday, the LP chieftain said the landmark judgement had put an end to flagrant abuse of the constitution by the governors.

Edeoga recalled that during the campaign period, he had pledged that local government funds would be sacrosanct.

He, however, urged the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, NFIU, to monitor a full implementation of the judgement.

The statement reads:

“The Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, on Thursday, July 11, 2024, delivered a landmark judgement on the control of the Allocations due to local councils in Nigeria, declaring that that it was unconstitutional for state governors to hold onto funds meant for Local Government.

“The judgement, which noted that local governments have since stopped receiving the money meant for them from the state governors who act in their stead also ordered that that only democratically elected local government councils in the country should be allowed to manage their funds themselves.

“While it is suspected that the judgment may not meet the approval of advocates of political restructuring in Nigeria, there is no doubt that it accords with the demands of the existing constitutional order.

“The violation of the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by governors of Nigerian states has been going on with flagrant impunity for many years and under different administrations since 1999.

“Local Government Areas, recognized in the Nigerian Constitution as the third tier of government and the one closest to the people, have been deprived of the funds needed for grassroots development, thus existing at the mercy and state governors.

“Over the years, state governors have made local government funds their cash cows, receiving and dispensing as they deemed fit, and without regard to the development imperatives of the councils, their employees, and their respective peculiar development challenges.

“This abuse has given rise to situations where local councils are forced to queue on a strange breadline, where governors favour some local governments while sidelining others.

“The offices of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other anti-corruption agencies are stacked with files bursting with evidence of abuse of local council funds by state governors, whose prosecution has been hindered by red tape and other inexplicable reasons.

“I recall that during my campaign for the Governorship of Enugu State, I highlighted the deplorable management of local council funds in Enugu State and vowed that council funds would be sacrosanct if I won the election.

“As a former local government Chairman, I knew the importance of those funds and the leverage they provide for rural development, employment generation, and economic empowerment.

“My belief is that rather than treat council funds as a source of free money as most state governors see them, I would ensure easy and direct access to it by council chairmen as a means of ensuring that local government councils become complementary to the state government’s development efforts.

“I also felt that compliance among the local government areas in my state would be a catalyst for development, thereby reducing the pressure on state resources.
Empowered Local councils, I also believe, would minimize the tendency of some governors and state officials to favour their local governments of origin while sidelining others.

“I am particularly relieved that the administration of President Bola Tinubu has taken this rare positive step towards restoring the glories of local administration in Nigeria.

“Those of us in the Enugu State chapter of the Labour Party see this as a step in the right democratic direction and must single out President Tinubu and the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, for pursuing this judgement with a single-minded determination and patriotic purposefulness.

“While we commend the current administration for the rare courage and vision deployed in pursuit of this case, we must also advise against allowing the judgement to form another layer of entry in our Case Laws.

“Nigerians are excited by the judgement and are looking forward to the restoration it would bring to bear on rural development across the country, and would be displeased if deliberate political, judicial, and institutional efforts are not made to ensure that implementation.

“As it stands, the EFCC will not have any excuse not to be alive to its responsibilities regarding fighting corruption in local government areas.

“Before this landmark judgement, the immunity granted by the Constitution to state governors had occasioned delays and other forms of frustration that slowed the investigation and prosecution of cases of abuse of council funds in Nigeria.

“Local Government Chairmen in Nigeria are not covered by any constitutional immunity, and as a result, would be directly held responsible for the utilization of the funds accruing to them from the federation account.

“This judgement, it must be emphasised, is a PUBLIC INTEREST MATTER and has reignited hope of a possible grassroots development renaissance among the progressive-minded people that are interested in the development of Nigeria and the wellbeing of everyone.

“To this end, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit must, as a matter of urgency, set up SPECIAL UNITS whose brief shall be to monitor full compliance with this judgement and proactively thwart any possible attempts by some state governors to circumvent the judgement.

“Such desks should be equipped to investigate, arrest, and immediately diligently prosecute those found culpable. If the anti-crime agencies are ready, there are right-thinking Nigerians who will be willing to partner with the Federal Government and its agencies to deepen the oversight and policing of local council funds.

“I also urge the Attorney General of the Federation to immediately publish consequential guidelines to the relevant agencies of government to ensure full and immediate compliance with the spirit and the letters of the Supreme Court judgment.

“The National Assembly should also expedite work on the constitution amendment process to remove the conduct of local government elections from the ambit of state government-created electoral bodies.”