The local government system is at crossroads. It is the closest to the people. Yet, many councils are just empty administrative units, repressed by state governments and mismanaged by elected or appointed helmsmen.
The 1999 Constitution, a military-imposed, defective document, makes provision for elected councils. It is an attempt to treat local government as the third tier. But, at issue is whether the council is a third tier under the Nigerian brand of federalism.
The Supreme Court has recently affirmed that democratically elected councils are guaranteed at the grassroots level. Therefore, the dissolution of a democratically elected council is illegal, null and void. Also, the implication is that following the expiration of the tenure of council chairmen and councillors, it is unconstitutional for governors to impose caretaker committees on the fledging councils.
But, it is not the end of the matter. Generally, local governments are creation of the state governments through the Houses of Assembly for ease of administration at the local level. The state parliameng is empowered to exercise oversight functions on the councils.
While the councils are a creation of the House of Assembly, they are not created as third tier. Yet, they are listed in the constitution. Thus, there is a duality of supervision and control.
Since it is listed in the constitution, the Federal Government exercises financial control. The councils depend on the distant central government for monthly allocation. When there is friction between the federal and state governments, it is the council that suffers. An example was the withholding of Lagos council funds by the Obasanjo administration, following the creation of additional Local Council Development Areas(LCDAs). The financial control by the Federal Government is irksome to state government, the councils being creations of its legislative arm.
It is a monumental contradiction that the councils created by state authorities are listed in the constitution and the Federal Government, which lacks the understanding of the local government peculiarities has retained financial control.
Although governors cannot dissolve local governments, the House of Assembly can constitutionally suspend erring council chairman or an unwise councillor. On account of political difference, the House can still apply the hammer, following instigation by governors.
As administrative units of state government, the independence of the local government is illusory. The control of councils is a bone of contention between the federal and state governments. The states believe that if local government control is outside their jurisdiction, states would be at half.
To reduce the tension, a State/Local Government Joint Account was agreed upon. After the release of the money by the Federal Government, the state will dictate the formula for re-allocation to the councils. Crisis often breaks out between states and councils due to political difference, particularly when the governor and council chairman belong to different political parties.
The acrimony is the bedrock of the agitation for council autonomy by ALGON and NULGE.
From the pre-independence era, local government had been relegated. As from fifties, they were reserved for political failures who could not make it to the regional and central legislature under the parliamentary system.
Yet, it was also an epoch remarkable for role identity and renewal. Gradually, councils also became a breeding place for elected and appointed functionaries at federal and state levels. The assumption is that, having mastered the rudiments of representation and governance at the local level, they can become vital democratic assets in administration at the higher levels.
At the grassroots level, where they were monitored by rural dwellers, they would have acquired the skills of transparency and accountability. In those days too, only a man of character; honest, hardworking and patriotism, would be thrown up by the community as a councillor.
While councils of the early fifties made impact on communities, councils of seventies and late eighties were shadow centres under the highly centralised military regimes. The 1976 reforms created a basis for personality clashes as it made the council secretary the chief accounting officer while the council chairman was a figure head. Under the military rule, rural development was not a core priority. Councils only presented a nominal link between the centre and the locality.
First and second republic councils demonstrated a semblance of capacity, unlike the dormant local governments of late eighties and nineties which paled into tools of political experimentation by latter-day military interlopers. Councils were only maintained by centralist-military rulers for the purpose of pseudo-grassroots coordination for security, in furtherance of regime protection. Their helmsmen were accountable, not to the local people, but the military administrators at the state level.
The military created local governments after state creation. The distribution of the councils was lopsided because it was based on the military formula, and not a product of consultation, need and dictates of the population. Fairness, equity and justice were set aside. That was why Lagos only had 20 councils while Kano and Jigawa, which were one state before, have 71.
Although presidential system was introduced at the council level by the military administration of Ibrahim Babangida in late eighties, it only resulted into the expansion of political structures to mitigate participation crisis, and not to expand the scope of service delivery to rural dwellers.
How has the local government fared in the Fourth Republic? Except in few states, it has been tales of woes. Councils seem to lack capacity for certain functions. Their personnel are not equipped professionally to drive developmental agenda. In many councils are technical personnel who parade themselves as engineers and bookkeepers who masquerade as accountants. Many staff are ill-trained, and ill-preparef for the challenges of modern local government administration.
The hand of the state government is heavy on the local government. Council funds are hijacked by state authorities in some states. State governments determine the operation of the critical joint account.
Corruption is also the bane of local government system. It has become an avenue for primitive accumulation, theft and graft, and ‘steal and go.’ Council chairman, councillors and supervisors swim in avarice and opulence to the detriment of the poor rural areas they are meant to serve.
Instead of channelling scarce resources to developmental programmes, there are allegations of money sharing. In some states, local party leaders believe that they are entitled to maintenance allowances from chairmen.
Today, many youths are aspiring to become chairmen, councillors and supervisors, not because of the desire for service, but the desire to pillage the treasury. Recurrent crises between council chairmen and aggrieved councillors who threaten them with impeachment are motivated by money, or skewed distribution of largersee.
There is nevertheless, no uniform local government system. It may be in tandem with federalism, or the requirement for peculiarities. The tenure of elected council in some states is three years. In some states, it is four. A Southsouth state even proposed two years at a time.
However, the election of chairmen and councillors is always shrouded in controversy in many states. The puzzle is: how independent are the state independent electoral commission?
There is need for more reforms at the local government to reposition it for efficient service delivery to the people.
