By Allen Sowore Esq
The Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on July 11, 2024, affirming financial autonomy and other critical principles, including the security of office for elected local government chairmen, has been widely celebrated in Nigeria. I’m particularly delighted about the judgment because oil-producing local government areas where I come from will definitely benefit more from the Supreme Court’s judicial activism when fully implemented.
I have, however, restrained myself from making any comment or analysis of the judgment without first obtaining the certified true copy (CTC).
I know for a fact that Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) guarantees a democratic system of local government—elected local councils officials.
Interestingly, the same section grants State Houses of Assembly the power to legislate on local government affairs—to ensure their structure, composition, finance, and functions.
This has led to ambiguities about whether local government functions are determined by state law or the Constitution, as outlined in the Fourth Schedule. Clarifying this is essential for effective governance.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court’s verdict grants financial autonomy to the local governments. This directly clashes with the provision in Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This section stipulates the financial allocation to local government councils, managed through the State Joint Local Government Account. The problematic provisions include:
– Section 162(5): Allocates funds to local governments through the States, as prescribed by the National Assembly.
– Section 162(6): Requires States to maintain a special account for local government allocations.
– Section 162(7): Mandates States to distribute a portion of their revenue to local governments.
– Section 162(8): Specifies that the State House of Assembly determines the distribution of funds among local councils.
While the Supreme Court’s decision is a milestone in the nation’s jurisprudence, constitutional amendment becomes imperative.
Unfortunately, some desperate politicians in Ondo state have taken the whole issue out of control. While I may agree with opposition political parties urging the state’s Attorney General to obey the Supreme Court judgment, sending messages to the telephone number of the Attorney General’s mother is wild, uncharitable and unacceptable.
One must imagine the cruel intention of a politician or a group of political wackadoodles sending threatening messages to an 89-year-old mother of the state Attorney General, Princess Christiana Monisola Ajulo to pierce her tender heart. The evil plan is to wreck havoc knowing full well that children are very dear to their mothers particularly at this old age. What kind of politicking is that?
One must easily forgive the ignorance of those who mentioned contempt in a declarative judgment—it is not easy to decipher.
What about those who hastily wrote a petition to the Chief Justice of Nigeria even when the copy of the judgment to implement is not yet available?
Anyway, 2024 is an election year/campaign season in Ondo state. However, it is callous, inure, and indurate for anyone to drag an octogenarian into the murky waters of politics just to score a point. Don’t they have mothers?
Peoplesmind
