The Federal Government has launched a significant legal action against the governors of Nigeria’s 36 states at the Supreme Court, accusing them of misconduct in the administration of Local Government Areas (LGAs).
This lawsuit, initiated by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, is a bold move to seek full autonomy for all local government areas across the nation.
The crux of the suit centers around the Federal Government’s demand for an order prohibiting state governors from the arbitrary dissolution of democratically elected local government leaders.
Such dissolutions, the suit argues, are unilateral, arbitrary, and unlawful. In addition to this, the Federal Government is pressing for the direct disbursement of funds to local governments from the federation account, bypassing the controversial joint accounts allegedly created by governors.
Specifically, the suit calls for an end to the practice of appointing caretaker committees to manage local governments, a method the Federal Government claims undermines the constitutionally guaranteed democratic system.
The Federal Government has also requested an injunction preventing governors and their representatives from receiving or misusing funds allocated to local governments from the federation account when no democratically elected local government structures are in place.
In support of its case, the Federal Government has laid out 27 grounds. It argues that Nigeria’s federal structure, established by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), recognizes the President as the head of the federal executive arm and mandates the upholding and implementation of the constitution’s provisions.
This legal framework also defines the roles of state governors, who have similarly sworn to uphold the constitution.
The Federal Government maintains that the constitution explicitly recognizes federal, state, and local governments as three distinct tiers of government. Each tier is entitled to draw funds for its operations from the federation account, a financial mechanism established by the constitution.
According to the Federal Government, the constitution mandates a democratically elected local government system, without provisions for any alternative forms of governance at this level.
The suit highlights a critical constitutional breach: the governors’ consistent failure to establish democratically elected local governments, despite the absence of any state of emergency that might justify such actions.
This failure, according to the Federal Government, represents a deliberate subversion of the constitution, undermining the democratic principles that both the President and the governors have vowed to uphold.
The Federal Government argues that continuous efforts to compel the governors to adhere to constitutional mandates regarding local governance have been fruitless. Allowing governors to control and disburse funds intended for non-existent democratically elected local governments, it asserts, fundamentally undermines the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution.
The Federal Government’s position is unequivocal: under section 162 of the constitution, it is not obligated to disburse funds to any state that has not established a democratically elected local government system. The government’s stance underscores a commitment to ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected and that local governments operate democratically.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for this pivotal case on May 30. This legal battle represents a significant moment in Nigeria’s ongoing struggle to ensure that local governance is conducted democratically and in accordance with constitutional principles.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the administration of local government areas and the balance of power between federal and state authorities in Nigeria.
As this case unfolds, it will be closely watched by stakeholders across the country. The Federal Government’s action highlights a critical aspect of Nigeria’s democratic framework and the ongoing efforts to uphold the rule of law and constitutional governance at all levels of the state.
