Editorial

SECTION 7(1) of part 2 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution expressly states how local government councils are to be constituted and administered. The constitution is the fundamental law from which every level and arm of government derive their authority and prescribed mode of operation, and to flout this with impunity is to push society in the direction of anarchy.

In the case of local government councils, the constitution unambiguously provides that “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly the government of every state shall, subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils”.

Against this background, a report in The Punch indicating that no less than 10 states have caretaker committees appointed by governors running the local governments, as opposed to the elected executive and legislative arms stipulated in the constitution is worrisome in that it constitutes an inexcusable abuse of the law. Ogun, Katsina, Anambra, Kwara, Osun, Zamfara and Sokoto are states which, reportedly, administer their local governments through appointed caretaker committees, following the expiration of the tenures of elected councils in their respective local governments.  Imo and Oyo states sacked elected councils before the expiration of their tenures, replacing them with caretaker committees, while in Kwara, the councils are said to be run by directors of personnel management in the local governments since Governor AbdulRahman Abdulrazaq’s assumption of office in 2015.

This practice is indefensible and demonstrates utter contempt for the law.  Particularly disturbing is that the Supreme Court, in 2016, reportedly delivered a judgement which voided laws passed by state legislatures that empowered governors to truncate the tenures of elected local government councils and replace them with appointed caretaker committees. This practice, in addition, constitutes a flagrant violation of a decision of the country’s apex court, which has the force of law. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the constitution also mandates the National Assembly to provide statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils in the federation while the House of Assembly should do the same for local government councils within the state.

The import of this is that, where public funds are allocated to any arm of government in line with the constitution, it is only persons duly recognised and authorised by the constitution that can legally expend such resources. Members of illegal caretaker committees, unrecognised by the constitution, who spend local government funds are thus committing a grave infraction; that they were authorised by governors to violate the law cannot be a valid excuse.

Read Also: Price of impunity

There are those who argue that in virtually all federations, only the federal and state governments constitute federating units and are thus entitled to constitutional recognition and allocation of funds. The point is that, until the law is amended, the status of local governments in the Nigerian federation is constitutionally guaranteed, and this must be adhered to. In protecting the democratic essence of local governments and allocating funds directly to them from the Federation Account, the intent of the constitution is to ensure greater control of the councils by the people at the grassroots, as well as enhance the accountability of local governments to the people who voted them into office.

This reasoning is defensible given the prevalent tendency of governors to deprive the councils of adequate funds to make any meaningful developmental impact at the grassroots, as the level of government closest to the people and best placed to positively impact communities. We are not unaware that, in reality, there is negligible difference in the operations of the appointed caretaker committees and the elected local government councils. Members of both tend to be beholden to the governor rather than the people they are supposed to serve. In terms of control of local governments, virtually all states are one party states with the party in control of the state invariably winning 100 percent of seats in local government elections. This is abnormal.

Again, the caliber of persons either elected into local government councils or appointed as caretaker committee members tend to be poor in terms of managerial competence and experience, since emphasis is placed more on partisan considerations than demonstrable ability to perform, and this has negative implications for grassroots development. A notable and commendable exception was in Borno State where, after her last local government elections, at least two professors emerged as council chairmen. If the right quality of people emerge to run the affairs of local governments, they will be able to add value to the councils and will be less prone to being mere errand boys of state executives as they are generally perceived to be.

Governors who appoint caretaker committees to run local governments render the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIEC) redundant as they exist principally to conduct local government elections. This is a needless waste of resources when staff of the SIECs are paid but they are unable to perform their statutory functions.

In principle, the idea of having democratically elected local government councils as provided for in the constitution is sound and should be made to succeed. Towards this end, measures should be taken to strengthen the autonomy of the SIECs to reduce the stranglehold of governors on them and enhance their capacity to conduct credible local government elections. States which have not conducted local government elections should comply with the constitution and do so without delay.