Former Delta State Governor James Onanefe Ibori has expressed strong opposition to the recent Supreme Court ruling granting autonomy to Nigeria’s 774 local government councils. Ibori criticized the judgment, arguing that it undermines the principle of federalism as defined in Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
In his detailed response posted on his verified X handle, Ibori emphasized that the section clearly stipulates the distribution of funds among the Federal, State, and Local Governments, with the establishment of the State Joint Local Government Account for all allocations. He argued that the court’s decision allowing federal intervention in local government finances contradicts this provision, potentially centralizing more power at the federal level and eroding state autonomy.
“I’m opposed to tampering with the allocations to the Joint LG Accounts at the state level, but this ruling is a severe blow to the clear provisions of the constitution,” Ibori stated. He warned of the far-reaching implications, including a shift in the balance of power, reduced financial independence for states and local governments, and the potential for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance.
Ibori acknowledged the necessity for local governments to be democratically elected but maintained that withholding their allocation is not the solution. He expressed concern that the ruling could lead to chaos and avoidable friction in governance, stressing the importance of respecting the constitutional framework.
Breaking: Tinubu Sacks Buhari’s In-Law, Four Top Officials
Citing the late Hon. Justice Oputa JSC, Ibori concluded, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” He called for a review of the judgment, believing it upends the concept of federalism.
James Onanefe Ibori’s statement on the Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy reads:
The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback to the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section expressly provides: “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.
(6) Each State shall maintain a special account 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 court’s ruling on this matter is an assault on true federalism. The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments under any guise. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.
I’m opposed to tampering with the allocations to the Joint LG Accounts at the state level, but that does not justify this severe blow to the clear provisions of section 162 of the constitution. The implications of the ruling are far-reaching:
- Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling contradicts the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds.
- Balance of Power: The ruling shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states, centralizing more power at the federal level, which contradicts the principles of federalism.
- State Autonomy: This decision erodes state autonomy. States are meant to control their internal affairs, including local government administration, in a federal system.
- Financial Independence: The ruling impacts the financial independence of states and local governments. Federal intervention in local government finances could be used 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 centralized system 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 tampering with the Joint LG Account. If the ruling is saying Governors cannot touch 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 Governments’ allocations directly will lead to chaos and avoidable friction in governance.
As Hon. Justice Oputa JSC of blessed memory once said about the Supreme Court: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”
It is my sincere hope that the judgment delivered today will be reviewed at the earliest time possible because it clearly upends the concept of federalism.
Signed; James Onanefe Ibori.
