The legal flaws of Anambra local government law

BY OPATOLA VICTOR

The supreme court in a recent judgement granted financial autonomy to local governments and authoritatively pronounced local government as the third tier of government in Nigeria. This judgement unsurprisingly has met stiff resistance from a lot of quarters, chief of which are some state governors who have made open their displeasure with the judgement and thus making a conscious effort to run circles around it.

In Anambra state, a recent legislation by the state house of assembly attempts to channel funds from local governments into a consolidated account in the guise of percentage remittances, raising serious questions about legality, transparency, and control. This article discusses the illegality of the said effort.  

One of the most glaring provisions of the said Anambra State Local Government Law 2024 is Section 13, which mandates that allocations received by local governments from the federal government must first be deposited into the state’s joint local government account. The state government then determines how these funds are distributed. This is an unmistakable violation of the recent supreme court judgment, and it’s hard to miss—it’s as obvious as night and day – the illegality of that section needs not be be-laboured.

Another troubling provision comes from Section 14, which requires local governments to contribute a percentage of their federal allocation funds, such percentage to be determined by the Anambra State Economic Planning Board, into a so-called Consolidated Fund. The purpose? “The uniform provision of common services,” according to the law. But what does that even mean?  In this case, anything framed as “common services” must be within the powers and responsibilities of each local government and ought to be governed by an independent commission with equitable representation as seen with the UBEC Fund.

Even more, the particular section stated that the particular percentage to be remitted by local governments will be determined by the State Economic Planning Board – we state boldly that the State Economic Planning Board has no such powers under the law to determine a deduction from a statutory fund and thus will be acting ultra-vires and beyond its powers. 

What’s particularly worrisome is that the Anambra house of assembly is overreaching. According to Section 7(6) of the Nigerian Constitution, the national assembly is tasked with making provisions for statutory allocations of public revenue to local government councils. In contrast, section 7(6((b) stipulates that state legislatures can only make provisions for the statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils within the state. The idea that a state assembly law can dictate how federal allocations should be handled by local governments is not just wrong—it’s illegal from the start. Every attempt to deduct local government funds in this manner is void and without any legal standing.

Sections 16 and 17 of the law introduce yet another controversial mandate: the creation of a Local Government Joint Security Trust Fund. Each local government is required to pay 20% of its allocation into this fund, a hefty sum for any local government. But here’s where things become even more questionable. The fund is controlled by a committee dominated by the governor’s appointees.

The special adviser on security, the commissioner for security, three mayors appointed by the governor, and the accountant-general for local governments make up this committee. Out of 21 local governments in the state, only three have any representation on the committee, and all the decision-makers are governors appointees one way or the other, which makes obvious the disguise. 

It’s not hard to see what’s happening here. This setup allows the governor to maintain near-total control over how the money is spent, with little input from the majority of local governments that contributed the funds in the first place. It’s central control in the name of a joint fund, and it strips local governments of any real say in the matter. Courts, when they look closely at this structure, will recognise it for what it is—an attempt to consolidate power under the guise of shared responsibility. The law will be seen for what it is –  a sham, a subterfuge, a mere cloak and a device to disguise the true nature of the intended arrangement. 

The constitutional issues go deeper. If local governments are already contributing 20% of their allocations for security, what exactly is the governor’s monthly security vote—his substantial budget for security—being used for? And more importantly, can a state law really force local governments to shoulder a responsibility that isn’t explicitly outlined in the constitution? Local governments, under Nigerian law, are not tasked with security to this extent. Forcing them to contribute to a security fund is not just a misallocation of resources; it’s a clear overreach of legal authority.

Federal and state powers are carefully divided for a reason. Just as the federal government cannot impose financial responsibilities on state governments without their consent, state governments cannot force local governments to contribute to initiatives that fall outside their constitutional powers and jurisdiction. This is a bedrock principle of governance in Nigeria, and any law that attempts to blur these lines will not hold up under scrutiny.

At the heart of this issue is an apparent effort to sidestep the supreme court’s ruling on local government financial autonomy. The law, when subjected to rigorous legal examination, falls apart. Its flaws are clear, its motives questionable, and its constitutionality shaky at best. The courts, without a doubt, will see this for what it is—a thinly veiled attempt to maintain control over local government resources, in direct opposition to the principle of autonomy.

This law is not about common services or joint security. It’s about control, and it’s bound to unravel.

Opatola Victor can be contacted via [email protected]