LGA autonomy: Can Buhari win against govs?

NIGERIANS heaved a sigh of relief when President Muham­madu Buhari, in his inaugural speech, promised he would not allow local government funds to be plundered by states. With this, there was optimism that local governments, many of which had become comatose because of paucity of funds would be revived. But the burning question is how the president intends to break the strong hold of gover­nors on local government funds.

The subject of financial au­tonomy for local governments across the country, has been a topic of national discourse as far back as 1999. During the tenure of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, he had advocated for local governments to be financially independent of their states. The move was to ensure that the local governments take direct charge of allocations meant for them straight from the Federal government, without undue interference from the state governments. A former national chairman of the Peoples Demo­cratic Party (PDP), Audu Ogbeh, had also, at a retreat for party members, said that for local communities to be developed, the local governments, which had that constitutional responsibility, needed financial autonomy to carry out the functions for which they were created. His suggestion did not go down well with the governors, and the idea was shot down.

Another attempt was made last year by the Seventh Senate to push for financial autonomy dur­ing the 1999 constitution amend­ment exercise. In October 2014, the Senate had transmitted 23 amended items in the constitution for which it needed an agreement of 2/3 of the State Houses of Assembly (a number which rep­resents 24 out of the 36 Assem­blies) to endorse the amendments to scale through. One of the amended items was the proposal for financial autonomy for local governments, as against the joint account stipulated by the 1999 constitution. But it met a brick wall as 23 states, with strong sup­port from their respective gover­nors, opposed this amendment. Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Borno, Yobe, Taraba, Bauchi, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Zamfara, Rivers,Cross Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Akwa Ibom, Enugu and Imo States voted against autonomy, while, Oyo, Ogun, Lagos, Ebonyi, Anambra, Adamawa, Nasarawa, Plateau, Niger, Kogi, Benue, Kwara and Abia voted in favour of au­tonomy.

The reason given by some leaders of the Assemblies was that there were irregularities in the Local Government autonomy bill and they feared that the proposed autonomy would not be sustained. Another reason ad­vanced was that many of the lo­cal governments were immature and as such, if left unsupervised by the state legislature, would prove a problem in the general administration of the state. One of the then House Speakers in Taraba, had told newsmen that his state rejected the autonomy because local government ad­ministration was supposed to be subjected to the State Houses of Assembly, and if such ‘liberty’ was given, without any supervi­sory role by the Assembly, some local government chairmen in the country would take undue advan­tage of it. He also said that those who would suffer most from the autonomy would be civil ser­vants. He said the immaturity of the local government administra­tion became very apparent when many of them could not pay salaries of primary school teach­ers and workers in the primary health care centers.

After the rejection of au­tonomy by the State Houses of Assembly, the Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT), had in a statement signed by its public relations officer, Mr. Emmanuel Hwande, lauded the Assemblies for opposing autonomy. The body of teachers had said that its rejection of absolute autonomy for local governments was to prevent a situation where pri­mary education is plunged into uncontrollable crisis in the coun­try. Hwande, who cited instances where primary school teachers were owed salaries for months by local governments, said it was based on such incidences that the union was opposed to autonomy.

There are two schools of thoughts to the issue. Even though some see opposition of autonomy by the states as a ploy to continue the plundering of council’s allocation, the belief is that states who oppose autonomy see their control of local govern­ment funds as a sign of their eco­nomic strength. The argument is that since the country is running a presidential system, a situation where the federal government shares allocation to states, then the same should apply to states and local governments. This has made the moves to whittle the influence of the governors by making local governments autonomous to be resisted. Presi­dent Buhari is raising hope on many fronts, but many wonder if he would be able to achieve autonomy for local governments, given that so many people benefit from it? Many also wonder if he would be able to confront state governors over this issue, especially as many of them are members of his party. There are claims that not only have local governments become fiefdoms of state governors, party chairmen and chieftains, first ladies and top government functionaries benefit from the sharing of funds meant for local governments.

Buhari, had in his inaugural speech said: “Constitutionally, there are limits to powers of each of the three tiers of government, but that should not mean that the federal government should fold its arms and close its eyes to what is going on in the states and local governments, not least, the operations of the Local Gov­ernment Joint Account. While the federal government cannot interfere in the details of its op­erations, it would ensure that the gross corruption at the local level is checked.”

However, supporters of au­tonomy for local governments argue that since the three tiers of government each have a share from the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC), the local governments should be allowed to take its own share from the allocation, rather than wait for states to ‘dispense’ the monies. They argue that since the presence of the state government cannot be felt everywhere, funds meant for the local governments can be used for the development of rural areas.

Sections 1 and 2 of the fourth schedule of the 1999 constitution explains the functions of the Lo­cal Governments. It states: “The main functions of a local govern­ment council are as follows: a). The consideration and the making of recommendations to a state commission on economic planning or any similar body on –i) The economic development of the State, particularly, in so far as the areas of authority of the council and of the state are affected, ii) proposals made by the said commission or body. b). collection of rates, radio and tele­vision licenses c) establishment and maintenance of cemeteries, burial grounds and homes for the destitute or infirmed d) licensing of bicycles, trucks (other than mechanically propelled trucks, canoes, wheel barrows and carts; e) establishment, maintenance and regulation of slaughter slabs, markets, motor parks and public conveniences f) construc­tion and maintenance of roads, streets, street lightings, drains and other public highways, parks, gardens, open spaces, or such public facilities as may be prescribed from time to time by the House of Assembly of a state, g) naming of roads and streets and numbering of houses, h) provision and maintenance of public conveniences, sewage and refuse disposal; i) registration of all births, deaths and marriages; j) assessment of privately-owned houses or tenements for the purpose of levying such rates as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of a state; k) control and regulation of –i) outdoor advertising and hoarding, ii)movement and keeping of pets and all description, iii) shops and kiosks, iv) restaurants, bakeries and other places for sale of food to the public, v)laundries, vi)licensing, regulation and control of the sale of liquor.

A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Martins Agoziem, says that the main reason why local government areas were instituted in the first place was because it was meant to serve as a tool through which governance is brought to the grassroots because it is meant to directly impact on the people. He said: “In most states in Nigeria, state governors have crippled local government administration to the extent that the presence of local government is no longer felt. Section 7 of the constitution does not give the state executive powers to handle local government finances. What it gives them is a supervisory role, but allocations from the federal government into joint state/local government accounts have become free money for many governors.

“ The fact is that many gov­ernors are very overbearing and they see the local governments as their fiefdoms. I remember that during a forum where the issue of state police was being canvassed, Governor Adams Oshiomhole, who has always opposed the concept, bluntly told his colleagues that if many of them control the local govern­ments the way they do, what would happen when the states are given the freedom to have state police outfits. What is the implication of his assertion? It means that many governors have so monopolised the administra­tion of local councils such that no intending local government chairman can win elections with­out the support of the governor of his state.”

What is the solution to this impasse? Agoziem advocates for self dependency. He says that the federal government should stop funding local governments and they should be allowed to generate their own revenue. He says that when every local government is allowed to source its own revenue, then it would have the right to control its own resources.

“Just watch and see, as soon as the Federal Government stops funding local governments, the state governors would not be too eager to control the local govern­ments like they are doing now, because there would be nothing to share. If that cannot be done, the federal government should institute anti-corruption bodies at all the levels of government. There should be some to deal with corruption at the federal, state and local government level to put a check on how these monies are spent.”