Local Government System And Federalism Crisis

The constitution forms the foundation of all state institutions, including local government as a system of government in Nigeria. The people, as the ultimate source of all constitutional authorities as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, have hailed the Supreme Court of Nigeria for its landmark judgment on local government financial autonomy in Nigeria.

The Supreme Court of any constitutional democracy is the glue that sustains the enduring principles of the state. To ensure certainty and finality in judicial decisions, Supreme Courts face the duty to provide objectively correct answers to most complex constitutional questions, against the legal realists’ assertion that law is not a system of rules that is clear, consistent, and complete but that law is incurably “indeterminate”, riddled with ambiguities, gaps, vague terms and conflicting rules of interpretation.

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on local government autonomy creates a sideline solution to a constitutional crisis on the structure of Nigeria’s federalism. Whereas the judgment reflects the aspiration of many Nigerians for local government autonomy, it is important to situate it within the context and intendment of Section 7(1) which provides that “..accordingly, the government, of every state shall subject to section 8 of this constitution, ensure their (local government) existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.”; and Section 162(6) that “each states shall maintain special account to be 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.”

Without questioning the wisdom of the learned Justices, the following questions are pertinent as we celebrate the judgment, to wit: is the local government a component of Nigeria’s federalism? Is the judgment in consonance with the intendment of the provisions of Section 7(1) and 162(6) as earlier referenced? Is the Supreme Court likely to reverse itself in the nearest possible future as suggested by some critics of the judgment, particularly in a case that a different Attorney General of the Federation decides to approach the apex for such review?