It is shocking and laughable that ruling parties, which barely secured victories in gubernatorial elections, are now winning local government council elections by landslides.
In some states, even parties that had never won elections are sweeping council seats, often at the behest of influential governors seeking to undermine their political rivals. As an example, Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State exemplifies how to win elections despite lacking support from traditional power brokers.
The abuse of local government councils by governors is a pressing concern that threatens the very foundation of our democratic structure. While the federal government ensures timely disbursement of funds to all tiers of government through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), the reality is that many governors exert undue control over local government resources.
This is particularly evident in the misuse of the State Local Government Joint Accounts (SLGJA), which, though intended to streamline funding, often become instruments of financial manipulation at the state level.
Recognising that the federal government guarantees each tier of government its statutory allocations, governors have no legitimate reason to deny local councils their rightful share. This was underscored by the landmark Supreme Court ruling on July 11, 2024, which mandated direct federal allocation for elected councils to curb gubernatorial interference in local government finances.
However, with limited access to local government revenue after the ruling, many governors swiftly orchestrated elections to consolidate control over council positions and finances. The predictable results have seen ruling parties dominate the polls in nearly every state. These so-called “victories” do little to inspire confidence, as the elected officials often act as mere extensions of gubernatorial power.
The lack of genuine competition is hardly surprising, given that the governor’s appointees manage each State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC). The recent wave of local elections follows a clear pattern: handpicked candidates of the preferred parties consistently win and easily claim the titles of LG chairpersons and councillors through questionable processes, often coordinated behind the scenes by the governors.
Read Also: Nine things to know about acting COAS Olatubosun Oluyede
While one might expect an outcry over the shambolic LG elections, only a few voices have raised concerns. The election observation group Yiaga Africa recently highlighted the troubling development and recommended civic education, genuine competition, and a transparent electoral process. Unfortunately, the entrenched realities make these ideals’ recommendations almost unattainable.
These actions of some of the governors threaten to undermine the legitimacy of future elections, including gubernatorial and presidential contests. It would not be surprising if President Bola Ahmed Tinubu faced pressure to replicate this manipulative election strategy of governors in the 2027 general elections. The logic is simple: if governors can manipulate elections to their advantage with relative ease, why shouldn’t the president do the same at the national level?
Sadly, disobedience to court orders and manipulation of local judges are similarly rampant at the state level, rendering adjudications predictable. For instance, some state-controlled courts of justice, which handle local matters—including traditional issues and chieftaincy titles—function as extensions of their governors, lacking genuine impartiality and integrity.
The stronghold of governors on local governance is unmistakable, surpassing the President’s influence over state administrations as they wield significant control despite judicial efforts to safeguard local autonomy.” Meanwhile, under Tinubu’s federal administration, the Supreme Court has acted as an independent arbiter, often favouring opposition parties.
For instance, following the last general elections and rulings of tribunals, the apex court upheld the victories of opposition candidates, including Governor Abba Yusuf of the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP) in Kano, Governor Caleb Mutfwang of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Plateau, and Governor Alex Otti of the Labour Party (LP) in Abia, among others.
While the Supreme Court’s mandate for direct funding is a positive step, governors’ continued dominance over local governments is still apparent. Yet, the federal government continues the transparent disbursements of statutory allocations to states without interference. Why can’t state governments reciprocate such by ensuring local governments receive their fair share of internally generated revenue (IGR) without encroaching on their legitimate federal allocations?
The conduct of governors in a number of states may have set a worrying precedent and cast a doubt over their commitment to fiscal federalism and the principles of local governance.
I strongly urge the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, and the Finance Minister, Wale Edun, to take decisive action to protect local governments’ administrative and financial rights. They must implement mechanisms to ensure local councils have political autonomy and receive their financial entitlements without the risk of misappropriation by state authorities.
Local governments must be granted full political and economic autonomy to function effectively as the grassroots arm of governance. The future of our democratic governance hinges on the equitable treatment of all tiers of government, ensuring that local councils can genuinely serve their communities with the resources they rightfully deserve.
For Nigeria’s democracy to thrive, we must hold local elections to a higher standard. Despite its flaws, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) still performs better than SIECs, whose inefficiency and bias are becoming more apparent.
The debate over federalism versus centralisation will undoubtedly arise. However, a balance between federal and state powers is essential. If reforming SIECs proves unfeasible, INEC oversight may be necessary to safeguard democratic governance at the local level.
If citizens remain silent on recent flawed local elections conducted by some state governments, they should equally accept potentially compromised gubernatorial and presidential elections that the federal government could conduct in the future, possibly in 2027. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
