One issue that has gained traction and attract both commendation and criticism since the removal of fuel subsidy by President Bola Tinubu on assumption of office last year May is the contentious issue of Local government autonomy and the Supreme Court decision which puts a final nail on states/Council joint Account.
The depth and level of commendation and criticism this time arround cuts across the political parties and even the ethnic divides in the country .
READ Also:Celebrating Wole Soyinka@90: From ‘Ijegba’ to World Stage
For once, it is now a war of attrition from lawyers,advocates of regional autonomy and those who wanted good governance in whatever guise it is given.
It is quite apparent that the removal of direct allocation of accrued money from the federation account to local governments instead of state government is a direct death knell for sections 162 subsection 7 and 8 of the nations 1999 constitution which stipulated joint account by both states and local government.
It also in a way a sort of removing the hands of the governors from how their councils are run even though the ruling has not abrogated the creation of local governments and state independent electoral commissions by the states .
Thus the ruling has in one way given fiscal authority to elected local government councils but has failed to remove the hands of the state governors from how the councils emerge through Elections organised by the state electoral Commissions.
Over the years,the state governments have hijacked the funds expected to be used by the elected councillors to carry out their campaign promises to the people.
This means in effect that for the autonomy to be real,hands of state governors must be removed from the election of governors.
READ Also:The Supreme Court Judgment on LG Autonomy: Poison wrapped with honey
President Bola Tinubu
This itself will require the amendment of section162 subsection 6 and 7 …which also stipulated that the state shall maintain a Special account to be called State /Local Government Joint Account and the right of state governors to pay local government in its area of jurusdiction such proportion of its revenue as may be prescribed by the Nationsl Assembly.
Does it also means that for the Law to be effective,Tinubu has to go the whole hog and propose an amendment to the constitution to reduce too much centralisation of Nigeria.
But Femi Falanas position that the Judgement of the Supreme Court has invalidated the provision is instructive.
If it is true that Restructuring of the country has started, then it means Tinubu have to give meaning to his autonomy for local governments by taking steps to remove Powers to conduct local council elections from both state’s and Federal government.
This is to allay fears of advocates of Regional Autonomy who contended that putting or making local Councils appendage of Federal government will defeat the purpose of Federalism.
Though Ishola Williams, former secretary of Transparency International,TI believes the decision of the Supreme Court is not final and could be challenged by the governors because it means that there must be an amendment to section 162 of the Constitution by the state Assembies in 24 states supported by the national Assembly.
But in another breadth,constitutional lawyer,Falana believes removing the hands of the governors from monthly Federal allocations of the councils from the federation account signals the evolvement of grassroots development by the local governments.
Contrary to this ,advocates of regional autonomy like Chairman of Afenifere Renewal Group,ARG,Hon Wale Oshun, believes the judgement is an assault on federalism.
In other words, he believes the judgement is contrary to Tinubus promise to deepening federalism when he met Afenifere leaders over a month ago.
Wale Adeoye,of Journalist for Democratic Rights,JODER, shares same believe as he contended that the Supreme Court pronouncement could make a President who is Oligarchic to have powers to remove or determine a local government that should be rightly under the control of state government.
James Ibori,former Delta governor and advocate of true federalism also beliefs the Supreme Court judgement is a set back.
However,if Tinubu himself like Bode George ,an opposition figure, believes the judgement is the beginning of Restructuring,it means the term means different things to Leaders and political tendencies.
To the advocates of self determination,placing a local government in the hand of the centre is contrary to principle of Federalism as the local government occupies same geographical space with state governments.
Does it mean that Tinubu,if he listens to George, will in future consider allowing local governments and states to control their resources like Ibori, who started advocation for Resource Control in 2001 contended.?
What use, they say, is removing local governments from the overlord ship of a state and placing it under a federal power geographically distant from it.
In another breadth, it means that until a Bill is presented to amend the 1999 constitution which places local government as an appendage of state,it means,state governors can still determine who emerges as council chairman but wont have access to control the finances of the council..
The efficacy of this is doubtful giving the fact that experience has shown that nobody could guarantee free election in the state.
This is only feasible until the hands of the governor to use state electoral commission to conduct local government election is removed.
In spite of this, Falana, believes the Governors still have their Influence in local governments unchecked as they manipulate Council polls through the state electoral commission under their control.
He believes the Supreme Court Judgement though is final, is merely to control the Influence of the Governors in local government finances.
Does it then means that constitutional amendments may be on the way to make Councils perform some functions like payment of salaries for school teachers,construction of roads and other functions to give them responsibilities and justify their New Autonomy ?
They may now be required to be part of state’s economic councils according to subsection four of Section 7 which gave birth to them .
The federal government and or state’s and other stakeholders may seek more clarification on this from the Supreme court.
Does it mean Independent National Electoral Commission,INEC will now conduct local elections if the state is stripped of the Powers to constitute State Independent Electoral Commission,SIEC.
If it does, many argued,it is also against the spirit of autonomy as a federal agency cannot conduct a proper local elections.
If the Restructuring has to be total as George told Tinubu, it means local councils should also be allowed to set up local electoral bodies to be really autonomous of both the state and federal government.
This is where the advocates of regional autonomy question the sincerity of President Tinubu who is often regarded as being one of them.
Does it mean that contrary to expectations ,Tinubu only prefer autonomy for states and local governments and not regional government as widely believed in some quarters since he often speaks of fiscal federalism.
For advocates of fiscal federalism and regionalism.like James Ibori,Adeoye and Osun,Supreme Court decision is antithetic of true federalism.
To them it means that a tyranical or ethnically biased President can decide to seize Funds of a local government from any part of the country that doesnt fall into his political belief .
The experience with the Fulanistic regime of former President Muhammadu Buhari who dominated the federal apparatus and security agencies with his kinsmen comes to mind.
In another breath, advocates of fiscal federalism like George and Falana beliefs that allowing local councils access to their money will make funds flow in the local governments and triggered developments at the grassroots.
Wale Adedayo,the impeached chairman of Ijebu East local government allowed his head to be used to break the coconut when he stood up to Governor Dapo Abiodun over his diversion of local government funds.
Some have also argued that Tinubus disapointment With the way Funds disbursed by the Federal government as palliative after removal of subsidy could have Influenced his decision to aporroach the Supreme Court and use legal means to take away funds from governors he believes are in a way sabotaging federal governments efforts for cushioning effects of his harsh economic reforms .
But some contended that since corruption which was the Excuse of the governors in not releasing Funds is also prevalent in the state .
In this case many contended that there may be no difference as giving the funds directly to local governments would just have replaced tyranny of state governors with council chairmen who are also potential emperors on their own.
But others also contended that allowing funds to flow into local councils will stimulate development as councils are closer to the people and could be monitored by the people at the grassroots to deliver dividends of democracy to them .
Besides,council chairmen many argues, know the peculiar problems of their councils and could best use the monthly allocations to solve such development challenges.
Advocates of regional autonomy also believes that by transferring power to allocate funds to the federal authorities,the Supreme Court is merely replacing a local dictator with a remote and more powerful centre already saddle with much powers at the expense of the federating units.
Yet,others also question the justification of making local government federating units as what the Supreme Court ruling portends.
Except President Tinubu find a way of filling the missing links between true federalism and autonomy for the federating units,he might just have unwittingly increased the powers of the centre by removing local government from states without vesting it with requisite powers to control its resources which fiscal federalism is all about.
The nation waits.
