In recent years, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has come under withering criticism, because it had left Nigerians skeptical of its ability to reflect, interpret, and deliver justice. Many of its declarations – the judicial imposition of a governor who was not elected on Imo state, and its affirmation of the strange proclamations of the Court of Appeals on the election of the current, unelected, and highly unpopular president are recent cases in point.

But the proclamation of the Supreme Court on the autonomy of the local government restores a modicum of goodwill on the apex court, and hope for the constitutional development of Nigeria. Most Nigerians think the decision was the work of Solomon, and, of course, long- awaited. It granted local governments’ fiducial authority and the independence to act outside of the strictures which have been imposed on them by the authorities of the federating states in this republic. That court’s decision did not sit well only with a few people. For instance, a former governor of Delta State, Mr. James Onanefe Ibori, quickly criticized the Supreme Court judgment as an attack on “true federalism.” I am at a loss by what Mr. Ibori understands as “true federalism.”

In fact, truth be told, most people in Nigeria who talk about this beast of a thing called “true federalism” may not know exactly what the heck they are talking about. “True federalism” has become a term in Nigeria, made much of by the chattering classes of this nation.

It is so much now like the elephant and the blind men, who went about speculating and describing parts of the beast as they felt it intuitively. But let me point out quickly, using the most elementary definition, that federalism is the distribution of power between a central government and independent federating units of governments – regions, states, cantons, local governments. The federal system is constituted by their interdependence within the matrix of power sharing formulas that govern the sovereign entity. The power- sharing principle outlines, in general terms, the general or concurrentlist,theexclusivelist, and the reserved list of powers exercised by these federating authorities under a federal system. There is no “true” or “false” federalism. There is just federalism.

A federal state could be designed with a powerful central government with many exclusions or it can be a very weak central government with much reserved powers at the regions or the federating entities. Nigeria’s federal system is characterized by a very powerful central government which had absorbed and excluded much of the reserve powers that were originally granted to the regional entities as part of the sovereign negotiations that led to the independence of Nigeria.

These exclusions rendered the federating units almost nearly moribund as independent states, and even more so, the local government, on which “true federalism,” if there be any such essential concept, subsists, was nearly scrubbed out of constitutional relevance.

Irrespective of the fact that the Nigerian Constitution established Nigeria as a federal system with three tiers of government, but over the years, the local government – the third tier of state – has been made prostate, and fully “colonized” by state authorities. The effect has been terribly deleterious to the political, social, and economic development of Nigeria. Take the following principles clearly established under the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria from Section 7 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution: “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.

(2) The person authorised by law to prescribe the area over which a local government council may exercise authority shall- (a) define such area as clearly as practicable; and (b) ensure, to the extent to which it may be reasonably justifiable that in defining such area regard is paid to – (i) the common interest of the community in the area; (ii) traditional association of the community; and (iii) administrative convenience.

(3) It shall be the duty of a local government council within the State to participate in economic planning and development of the area referred to in subsection (2) of this section and to this end an economic planning board shall be established by a Law enacted by the House of Assembly of the State.

(4) The Government of a State shall ensure that every person who is entitled to vote or be voted for at an election to House of Assembly shall have the right to vote or be voted for at an election to a local government council.

(5) The functions to be conferred by Law upon local government council shall include those set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Constitution.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution – (a) the National Assembly shall make provisions for statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils in the Federation; and (b) the House of Assembly of a State shall make provisions for statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils within the State.” I have quoted this in full, just for the benefit of those Nigerians, particularly readers of the “Orbit,” who may be unfamiliar with this aspect of the Nigerian Constitution. Indeed, many Nigerians are unaware of the provisions of the Constitution on which their civic lives depend. A majority of Nigerians actually do not read the Constitution. Many who talk about Nigeria do so with little context. Many also do not understand the extent of their rights as spelled out in this Constitution. But the true fact is that the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria was always unambiguous about the status of local government. It did in fact declare very clearly: “thesystemoflocalgovernment by democratically elected councils…is guaranteed!” In fact, in Sub-section 3 it goes further to establish that “it shall be the duty of a local government council within the State to participate in economic planning and development of the area referred to in Subsection (2) of this Section and to this end an economic planning board shall be established by a Law enacted by the House of Assembly of the State.”

The sum of this is that the system of local government guarantees an elected, third tier political authority. But why was this subverted? Why did the governors of the various states appropriate the funds and the functions of the local government for the past twenty- five years, since the restoration of this democratic republic? The answer is that the various State Assemblies refused to do their jobs. It was always incumbent on them to guarantee state elections, and oversee the fiducial allotment to the local governments from the now rested “joint account.” It was odd that that “joint account” was created in the first place, but its implication was that the state governors and the elected Chairmen of the local governments will sit “jointly” as equal partners on an “economic planning board,” to determine the actual development of the states.

But what has happened is that the governors, assuming themselves quite wrongly to be the bosses of these local authorities, partly because of a misreading of the constitution, and partly because of the lingering effects of the military governments which unified local authority with state authority under the command system of the military, continued to appropriate the powers of the local government with little response by the elected State Assemblies. These elected state Assemblies are ineffective, rubber stamp

legislatures. Many of those elected into these Assemblies either have very little ideas about their jobs, or were beneficiaries of the looting, by state governors, of the funds allocated from the federation account by to the Local Governments. Their ploy was consecrated on the substantial misinterpretation of the meaning of the “joint Account,” by which local government allocations were paid. The Supreme Court decision has made right that anomaly. According to the ruling of the constitutional court, the allocations of local governments from the Federation Account must now (a) be paid directly into the accounts of the respective local governments, and (b) no unelected local government must receive that fund. In other words, the courts have restored the fiducial independence and political autonomy of the local government. This is a very welcome development. The states have underdeveloped the local governments, which has the traditional function of trading and developing local leadership, building and expanding local economies to ensure wider prosperity; creating basis for the growth of small and medium businesses, and basically investing in schools, a highly trained local government workforce; maintenance of local roads, streets, streetlights, sewer systems, refuse collection, public parks and forest reserves; recreation; city plans; local public utilities, etc.

A functioning local government ensures that local economies are sustained by local mandates. The Supreme Court decision, will very shortly, reflate the Nigerian economy, and stop the general malaise of looting by state governors and their cronies, of monies meant for investment in local economies,muchofwhichhave been stolen, and salted away in banks in Lagos and in various foreign countries. This judgment is a good start.