By Emmanuel Ado
The wild jubilation that greeted the Supreme Court judgment of July 11, 2024, in the suit filed by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Attorney-General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice to strengthen the autonomy of the local government councils as guaranteed by the 1999 constitution, is understandable. But the judgment has unwittingly sustained the erroneous impression that the myriad of problems confronting the local government administration would be fixed with its “cure all” directive that the federal government should henceforth credit local government accounts directly.
The other reason for the uncontrolled celebration, especially by some commentators who hold governors responsible for the poor state of the councils, is that having been finally set free by the apex court from the “suffocating apron strings” of the “notorious” state governors, the councils would witness rapid development. What a delusion!
In Nigeria, state governors have been singularly held responsible for the nation’s apparent lack of development, while in fact the federal government, the real culprit, continues to get away with blue murder. Mere directors in the federal ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) have done more damage to the country than the 36 state governors put together.
The other decisions of the court include: the reaffirmation of the democratically elected local government system as opposed to caretaker committees, declaring dissolution of councils illegal, and withholding of funds to councils without elected officials. But, as expected, the judgment affirming the financial independence of the 744 councils was the most celebrated because everything is about money.
While being cautious not to dampen the enthusiasm of the hosanna group, there is the need for them to tamper their expectation with some reality checks. For instance, the fact that many of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) have remained pathetically underdeveloped despite receiving their allocations directly and enjoying relative independence is enough reason for the hosanna choristers to tamper their exuberance with extreme caution, because the judgment wouldn’t substantially change the fortunes of the councils.
The grouse with the Supreme Court judgement is that it unfortunately and tragically reduced the fundamental problems confronting the councils; the lack of capacity, absenteeism, negative attitude to work, corruption, and the weak structure of the local government system, etc., into simply a funding issue. The fact remains that unless these issues are critically addressed, the hosanna songs would sooner than later turn into lamentations and an agitation for the return to the much-derided joint account.
The Supreme Court judgment will not, by a stroke of the pen, improve the quality of candidates running the councils! It’s doubtful if the Supreme Court judges ever read the World Bank Report: Attacking Poverty. According to the report, “poorly functioning Public Sector institutions (like local governments) and weak governance are major constraints to growth and equitable development in many developing countries.” So, it’s not enough for the court to have made the consequential orders without taking into consideration the systemic problems that would definitely defeat the expected outcome. Without a systemic reform that would ensure improved quality of elected and public servants running the councils, the judgment would not achieve the intended objective.
The problem confronting the councils is certainly not the lack of financial autonomy, but the appalling lack of capacity. So, the focus should be on tackling headlong the lack of capacity, issues of overstaffing, poor revenue generation, endemic corruption, etc., which are responsible for poor service delivery and the acceleration of the socio-economic development at the grassroots. Financial autonomy can’t make the councils responsive, nor accountable, just as the hood doesn’t make the Monks.
Several studies by multilateral institutions have clearly established that “individual investment projects are less likely to succeed in a distorted policy environment and that neither good policies nor good investments are likely to emerge and be sustainable in an environment with dysfunctional institutions and poor governance.” It follows that if the purpose of governments at all levels is to accelerate development and reduce poverty, then reforms and strengthening of the councils that will ensure effective performance must be undertaken, especially at the level of the councils which Robert W. Flack describes as the “foundation of democracy.”
Unknown to many Nigerians, the glaring absence of capacity at the local government levels led to the introduction of the Primary Health Care Under One Roof policy and donor agencies’ demand that primary healthcare centers be managed by the state governments.
The Supreme Court judgment confirms the penchant of Nigerians to chase shadows, of motion without movement, and refusal to address fundamental questions.
The nation seems to be afflicted with citizens with very short memories, hence they seem to have forgotten that the joint account was a reaction to the failure of the councils to meet their monthly obligations to teachers, health workers, and the people. With certainty, you would want to predict that teachers and health workers will soon start having salary problems.
Before Kaduna State Government embarked on the reform of the councils, in 2015 at least 15 of the 23 local governments in the state were bankrupt and couldn’t afford to pay salaries without the support of the state government, nor were they able to execute any meaningful project.
Without doubt, the responsibilities of local government councils are becoming much more complex and so has governance by the day. For instance, computer literacy has certainly become a must for the leadership and workers, just as thinking out of the box to attract funding is the way to go. Elected officials must possess special skills and have deep understanding of issues to solve critical problems facing their various communities. These issues have been swept under the carpet by the Supreme Court and would definitely come back to haunt the country.
So, technically speaking, the joint account was a solution to a myriad of problems. The councils need surgical reforms and only the state governments can save the day, because the operators can’t muster the necessary political will to embark on it. And like all reforms, surgical operation on the local council system is bound to bring pains, but without it, the system will eventually collapse.
The stark choice before the nation is reform and survive, or refuse to reform and stagnate. We need to copy from countries with effective local government systems. Singapore, for instance, invested heavily in education and offers competitive compensation for public servants and aligned their salaries with private sector standards, which ensures that its councils are run by competent hands.
The blame for non-performance constantly heaped on lack of financial autonomy of the local councils is misplaced, a classic case of a bad workman quarrelling with his tools.
Kaduna state has not only reformed the local government administration system, but has put in place significant laws which have ensured that the councils are on a solid footing to meet the aspirations and yearnings of the people. The same can’t be said about other states.
Therefore, the jubilation over the recent Supreme Court judgment is premature. Those celebrating should stop strutting until the outcome is seen; then we can all collectively shout “Uhuru”. A country cannot run on rhetoric but, rather, on the effectiveness of the system. The failures in infrastructure and service delivery are symptomatic of bureaucratic inefficiency and until the systemic reforms are made, the local government councils will not deliver services to the people, regardless of court rulings or the amount of money they receive.
The envisaged reform must resolve several issues impeding public service efficiency, address low productivity, redundancy, duplication of roles, high proportion of aged workers, and the issue of unskilled staff. While the state governments cannot usurp the powers of the councils, they can help remove the impediments that hinder the councils’ performance, which is precisely what the reforms would do.
We must stop demonizing the states. It certainly wasn’t in any way the desire of the state governments to subjugate the councils to its control, but rather a higher duty to society that they function effectively to the benefit of all.
