LG autonomy: Still long walk to freedom

[Mirror]

The States/Local Governments' Joint Accounts have been blamed by many for the inability of the councils to meet their primary objectives. FELIX NWANERI, in this report, examines the Senate's rejection of the proposal, which would have amended relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution to grant autonomy to the third tier of government.

The local administration is the closest tier of government to the people in Nigeria, yet the resident population in the 774 councils across the country is denied the benefits of their existence, especially in the area of service delivery, which in turn, has made the citizens to lose trust in the institution.

This dereliction of duty explains the crave by many Nigerians for change in the local government system as presently constituted in order to bring it in conformity with present day realities and make it live up to the expectations of the people, who have continued to yearn for grassroots development.

The change, stakeholders, however agreed, will require a constitutional amendment, as the joint account run by the various states and councils is to be blamed for the latter's inability to meet the two primary objectives spelled out in the Local Governments' Reform of 1976, which are: to promote participatory democracy, and ensure rapid socio-economic development at the local level.

Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees a system of local government by democratically elected government councils. However, the second component of the section makes the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the local governments dependent on state laws.

Besides the guarantee, the constitution however, inadvertently makes it possible for state governments to "cripple" the local governments financially by routing funds standing to their credit in the Federation Account through the States/Local Governments' Joint Accounts rather than directly to them.

Whereas the Federal Government argued then that the operation of the joint account was meant to bring even development to all parts of the country as well as forestall a situation where no single government official at the state or local level corruptly enriches himself from the commonwealth, the arrangement has over time, adversely affected the financial viability of the councils as some state governments have continued to make inexplicable deductions from the accounts.

Section 162 (8) of the constitution, which explains how the amount standing in the joint account should be distributed to the local governments, states: "The amount standing to the credit of local government councils of a state shall be distributed among the local government councils of that state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the state."

But rather than ensure fiscal responsibility, the law has provided a window for state governments which are constitutionally required to fund local government councils, to instead hold them (the local governments) hostage and make them their appendages.

In practice, the operation of the joint account has denied the local governments their financial autonomy. It should be noted that the state governments were not meant to be beneficiaries of the account but trustees.

They were required to maintain the accounts for the benefit of the local governments by ensuring that the amount allocated for this third tier of government is equitably and fairly shared among the councils, adhering strictly to constitutionally stipulated criteria. However, reports across the country indicate that most state governments implement the joint account contrary to its intention.

Instances abound where some governors hand out only wage bills to the various council chairmen in their respective domains, a development which have prompted calls by some analysts and stakeholders for the Federal Government to either review the local government system or scrap it. National President of the National Union of Local Government Employees, NULGE, Ibrahim Khaleel, said the account had been the main problem of local government system because state governments have continued to abuse it. His words: "There are illegal and sundry deductions from local government fund through the joint account by the state governments.

And also imposition of undemocratic structures (caretaker committees) to run the affairs of local governments contrary to Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution by state governments." He added that the section has helped shield and create escape routes for many state governments to manipulate local

government affairs. "It has been the antidevelopment instruments used to frustrate every progressive and patriotic action to make the local government work since the return of democracy in 1999," Khaleel said.

The Abia State chapter chairman of the union, Eze Idima, described the joint account arrangement as a rip-off. He alleged that local governments' chairmen, by the arrangement are in the dark over how much their councils received monthly from the federation account. "Today, local governments in the state do not know how much they receive as monthly allocation from the federation account.

Here, what happens is that council chairmen submit wage bill to the Auditor- General for onward submission to the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs who tinker their budgets and release funds to them after deductions by the Joint Account Committee through the Local Government Auditor- General's Office.

"The remnants are given to them to pay salaries and as running cost and this are usually between N4 million and N5 million monthly. In the state, allocations to the local governments are not made public unlike in the past when it was usually available on the internet," Idima lamented. It was against this backdrop that most Nigerians who submitted memoranda during the public hearings conducted across the country by the Senate and House of Representatives, as regards the amendment to the 1999 Constitution, were of the consensus that financial autonomy should be granted to the local governments.

For instance, the House of Representatives report on public sessions held simultaneously in the country's 360 federal constituencies in April showed that the people voted overwhelmingly for financial autonomy for the councils; their proper recognition as a third-tier of government and rejected the allocation of funds to caretaker executives of local governments.

This position, which raised the hope of freedom for the councils, was however dashed last week when the Senate voted against the proposal to make the local governments autonomous through the abolition of the Joint States/Local Government Account. At the sitting that witnessed a record of 101 members, the upper legislative chamber voted 59 in support and 38 against, with two abstinences to shot down the proposal.

For any of the new proposals in the draft constitutional bill to scale through, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority, which translates to 73, in a Senate that has 109 members.

The Senate President David Mark, who spoke at the session, thanked the senators for what he described as the historic decisions they made through their votes and the efforts of the constitution review committee in completing its assignment in good time and coming up with very far-reaching recommendations.

He said: "Today is a historic day in the history of democracy in this country. We have voted in what we believed in and we voted for those issues that we think will ensure that democracy continues to mature and take a firm root in this country.

"I want to thank you because I believe that the committee worked very hard to be able to get us where we are now. Whatever emotions or sentiments people had to express we put them in practical terms."

While Mark commended his colleagues for a job well done, angry reactions have trailed some of the decisions of the Senate, particularly as it affects the local councils. Some analysts, who commented on the issue, queried how the lawmakers arrived at the position, given the stand of Nigerians during the public hearings.

"If the Senate did not reflect the collective views expressed by Nigerians during the public hearings, whose views did they convey during the debate?" an analysts asked. NULGE, in its reaction, described the rejection as a move against the voice of the common man. The National Publicity Secretary of the union, Malam Abdulrahman Mutawalli, who stated this, however said it will not deter the group from fighting for the masses.

Similarly, the immediate past Imo State chairman of the All Nigeria People's Party, ANPP, Chief Vitalis Ajumbe, described the decision of the lawmakers as most unfortunate.

He said: "It is sad to note that most governors are very happy over their persistent hijack of local government funds in the past years. It is sad that they are happy over the hijack of the third tier administration in Nigeria. The bulk of the money they spend is local government fund. I am sad with the decision."

Ajumbe alleged that most of the sitting governors sponsored some of the lawmakers and would have ultimately used their point men in the Senate to bulldoze their way. The arm twisting theory may not be far from the truth as the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors' Forum, NGF, Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, it would be recalled, had persistently insisted that governors would not give up in their campaign against local governments autonomy.

Amaechi said the governors were opposed to autonomy because they believe that the councils should not be designated as federating units. He also argued that countries all over the world maintain two tiers of government and Nigeria should not be an exception, adding that the NGF as a pressure group will continue to push its opposition against local governments' autonomy through the constitution amendment process. His views were shared by his Osun State counterpart, Rauf Aregbesola and constitutional lawyer, Prof Itse Sagay (SAN).

Aregbesola, who was the keynote speaker at a recent forum in Lagos, noted that local government autonomy will remain impracticable except there is a fundamental restructuring of the federal system of government. According to him, Nigeria is the only country with a federal system of government that still runs a three-tier of government.

His words: "There is no provision for the local government system in a federal structure. It is only the government at the centre and the state government that exist in a federal system of government. Local government should not be seen to be outside the state government.

I don't believe in the current structure in Nigeria. Allocation going direct to local governments defeats the principle of federalism but that doesn't mean that the councils should not enjoy some level of freedom. "The local governments must be the creation of the states and supervised by them, including their structures."

Aregbesola drew inference from the federal systems in the United States, Switzerland, Austria and Germany to buttress his position, noting that "autonomy only makes sense in the relationship between the states and the centre."

Sagay, on his part, maintained that the listing of local governments in the constitution negated the principle of true federalism. Noting that autonomy for the councils means "kissing federalism goodbye," the legal luminary described as "error of madness," the proposal by the National Assembly that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, should be responsible for the conduct of local government elections. His words: "A local government is part and parcel of a state and therefore should not have any relationship with the Federal Government.

So, the listing of local governments in the constitution is an aberration. "Ordinarily, the councils should be agencies of the states for development. So, the question of having autonomous local governments is out of it. Listing of local governments in the constitution is peculiarly a Nigerian problem.

The involvement of the National Assembly in local government creation is wrong." He cited Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution to buttress his point, saying that issues of local government creation and maintenance is a responsibility of the state and that where this is altered, it is no longer a federal system.

"Every state should decide how many local governments it wants to create and fund them. The councils should not be mentioned in the constitution.

The idea of a federation account is a problem. Why do we have to share from one account and still say we are a federation?" He blamed the anomalies in the system on Nigerian lawmakers, whom he said have some form of "insecurity in their thinking," arguing that in a true federal system, the states are free to create and use the local government as it wishes.

Despite the Senate's position, hope for autonomy for the councils is not completely lost, as the House of Representatives is yet to begin its debate on the report submitted by its committee on the constitution amendment.

The debate, scheduled to commence last week failed to hold due to indecision on a method to adopt and complaints by over 20 lawmakers that they were yet to be served copies of the document. Indication that the House may not toe the position of the Senate hinges on the fact that the green chamber had even before the constitution amendment process, initiated a bill for an act to amend not only the provisions of Sections 7 of the Constitution, but also Section 162 in order to provide for independence and financial autonomy of the local government councils.

The bill was sponsored by the member representing Anaocha/Njikoka/Dunukofia federal constituency of Anambra State, Hon. Uche Ekwunife. The lawmaker had in her presentation of the bill lamented the level of underdevelopment at the local governments' level across the country owing to neglect by the various state governments.

According to her, the impact of governance has not been felt at the councils in terms of changing the lives of the people as funds meant for them are usually withheld by the states. She maintained that until the constitution is amended, the councils would continue to be under the apron strings of the state governors.

Her words: "The only way to liberate the people at the grassroots is to reposition the administration of the councils to provide essential services to the people."

Her view was shared by some eminent Nigerians including former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Senate President Ken Nnamani and the Shehu of Borno, Abubakar Ibn Garbai, who argued that financial autonomy for local governments remains the only way out for the nation's poor state of development, especially at the grassroots level.

Babangida noted that development will be even and sustained if allocations meant for the various local government councils are released to them directly. He, however, remarked that while the money is released to them directly, they should be made to account for how it is spent by way of monitoring the various projects initiated and executed to maintain quality.

The former military ruler pointed out that his agitation for financial autonomy for the third tier of government was borne out of the starvation of some local government councils in the past, especially during the first democratically-elected local governments when they were starved of legitimate funds for belonging to a different political party than the party at the federal level.

Abubakar on his part said the joint account regime had reduced the third tier to nothing, while Nnamani, was of the opinion that autonomy should be granted to the local governments, so that they could carry out their responsibilities. To the Borno monarch, "the councils, as the closest tier of government at the grassroots, should be allowed to have financial autonomy. Their services should include health care, education and poverty eradication at the grassroots level.

The local governments are supposed to help in eradicating both rural and urban poverty as well as enhance the quality of life of the people." While the Senate may not have the final say on the issue, as there will be a conference of both houses of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives) should the House disagree with its (Senate) position, Nigerians are anxiously waiting for how the seeming ambiguities and contradictions in the constitution which have aided the state governments in diverting funds meant for the councils would be tackled.

However, whichever way it goes, a sure bet is that the amendment to the 1999 Constitution would not be said to be effective if the peoples' views as expressed during the public hearings are jettisoned in the process.

National Mirror

[Folami David]

That's the way things are in this country so we are not in any way surprised. Primary objectives is always important in things like this....