‘Assault on true federalism’ — Ibori faults s’court ruling on LGA financial autonomy

James Ibori, a former governor of Delta, has faulted the supreme court ruling on the financial autonomy of the 774 LGAs in the country. 

On Thursday, the supreme court ruled that the federal government should henceforth pay allocations directly to local government councils from the federation account.

The seven-member panel of justices held that state governments have continued to abuse their powers by retaining and using the funds meant for LGAs.

The apex court also ordered the federal government to withhold allocations of LGAs governed by unelected officials appointed by the governor.

Reacting to the judgment in a post on his X page, Ibori described the ruling as an assault and a setback on true federalism, adding that the decision contravenes section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

He said the federal government “has no right to interfere with the administration of LGAs under any guise whatsoever”.

The former Delta governor said the ruling would have “far-reaching” implications, such as “erosion of state autonomy” and centralising “more power to the centre,” among others.

“The supreme court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” Ibori wrote.

“The section expressly provides thus: ‘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: ‘Each State shall maintain a 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.

“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.

“This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.

“Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralises more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.

“State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a federal system.

“Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this 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 centralised system of government over time. That local governments must be ‘democratically elected’ goes without saying.”

The former governor added that he hopes the ruling “will be reviewed at the earliest time possible because it clearly stands the concept of federalism on its head”.