Seven months after the Supreme Court delivered its landmark ruling granting full financial autonomy to local governments, implementation remains stalled amid political maneuvering and bureaucratic bottlenecks, ISMAEEL UTHMAN and OLUFEMI ADEDIRAN report
The implementation of local government autonomy has faced numerous hurdles seven months after the Supreme Court judgment.
Legal practitioners have expressed concerns that the delayed implementation of the Supreme Court ruling was disrespectful to the apex court and showed how the Nigerian government often seeks to circumvent judicial decisions.
On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered that local government allocations must be paid directly to them, as requested by the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, in a suit filed at the court.
Fagbemi had instituted the lawsuit on behalf of the Federal Government, seeking to grant full autonomy and direct funding to all 774 local government councils in the country.
He urged the apex court to issue an order prohibiting state governors from unilaterally, arbitrarily, and unlawfully dissolving democratically elected local government leaders.
However, the 36 state governments, through their attorneys general, filed a counterclaim, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.
They further contended that the AGF lacked the locus standi to institute the suit on behalf of the local governments.
Despite this, the Supreme Court affirmed its jurisdiction. In a judgment read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the court ruled that states’ retention of local government funds is unconstitutional.
“The demands of justice require a progressive interpretation of the law. It is the position of this court that the federation can pay local government allocations directly to the LGs or through the states.
“In this case, since payment through states has not worked, the justice of this matter demands that LG allocations from the federation account should henceforth be paid directly to the LGs,” the court ruled.
The Supreme Court further granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, or privies from spending local government allocations. It also declared that no state government should receive funds meant for local governments.
Additionally, the court ruled that state governments have no power to appoint caretaker committees and that only democratically elected local government councils are legally recognised.
“A democratically elected local government is sacrosanct and non-negotiable,” the court affirmed.
Above all, the apex court directed the Federal Government to comply with the judgment immediately.
“An immediate compliance with this judgment,” the Supreme Court ordered.
However, rather than complying with the Supreme Court verdict promptly, both the Federal and state governments have been manoeuvring around the ruling and making efforts to circumvent its implementation.
Legal practitioners have raised concerns that the Federal Government’s reluctance to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling undermines the authority of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court is the final appellate jurisdiction, and its judgments are binding on all lower courts and concerned parties, in accordance with Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
It was noted that the first attempt to frustrate the implementation of local government autonomy was the three-month moratorium granted to governors by the Federal Government in August 2024.
The Federal Government and state governors had agreed to the moratorium over concerns regarding its impact on salary payments, operational viability, and the conduct of local government elections, among other issues.
