By Emmanuel Sixtus
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, after a long legal battle between the federal government and the state government, ruled that the local governments of the country shall enjoy full autonomy, devoid of influence from the state government.
The governors of the federation had challenged the federal government, stating their arguments and making significant submissions on why the local governments must not be independent, but the court found their arguments and submissions wanting—not enough to convince it.
Since the ruling in favour of the federal government, the governors have been seeking a way to manoeuvre the ruling and sustain the status quo.
Firstly, the governors quickly called for local government elections after the ruling. Against the Supreme Court ruling, the governors conducted the elections and decided winners with their various state electoral commissions under their whims and caprices.
While the governors have never made public comments collectively in opposition of the ruling because they have exhausted their legal opportunities, which means they cannot appeal, they keep making moves that negate the ruling.
Governor Chukwuma Soludo, the governor of Anambra State, has stated for the first time the reasons he cannot abide by the ruling.
In his speech, Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo addresses the recent legislative developments in Anambra State concerning local government administration. He emphasises that the two new laws passed by the Anambra State House of Assembly—the *Economic Planning and Development Law* and the *Local Government Administration Law*—are designed to enhance transparency, sustainability, and collaboration between the state and local governments.
Soludo argues that these laws align with the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 7, which empowers states to establish, structure, and manage their local governments. He views the recent Supreme Court ruling on direct transfers to local governments as an opportunity to further empower local governments while maintaining oversight to ensure accountability and efficiency.
The governor highlights that local governments cannot operate in complete autonomy, as some advocates suggest, due to their constitutional responsibilities in areas such as primary education and healthcare, which often require pooled resources.
He also notes that absolute autonomy would create administrative chaos, undermine collaborative efforts, and potentially harm workers, teachers, and retirees dependent on local government funds. Soludo uses examples of similar collaborative frameworks between the federal and state governments, such as the management of solid minerals and federal security funding, to demonstrate that inter-governmental collaboration is essential for effective governance.
The governor didn’t openly say that he would not abide by the ruling of the court but has tactically used the constitution to oppose the ruling.
Soludo’s argument revolves around the idea that structured collaboration, transparency, and accountability are necessary for local governments to function efficiently. He refutes claims that governors seek control over local government funds, stating that the new laws empower local government chairmen and councils to make decisions through a joint account for common services while still allowing individual councils to manage their resources.
The governor’s reforms are intended to avoid the financial mismanagement that plagued local governments in the past and to ensure that critical services such as education and healthcare remain functional.
Regarding constitutional interpretation, Soludo’s position aligns with the current provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which grants states significant control over local government administration through their legislative assemblies.
While the constitution does not explicitly grant local governments absolute autonomy, it mandates state-level oversight.
The Supreme Court judgement did not invalidate this framework but rather called for greater transparency in the use of local government funds. Hence, Soludo argues that Anambra’s new laws are not only constitutional but also necessary to ensure the proper management of resources at the local level.
In conclusion, Soludo’s speech emphasises the importance of collaboration between state and local governments for sustainable development. He argues that absolute autonomy for local governments would be impractical under the current constitutional framework and could lead to financial instability.
His defence of Anambra’s new laws centres on their alignment with the constitution and their role in safeguarding the progress made in local governance.
Yet, critics are beginning to find lawlessness in his speech and conclude that the speech is simply a clear announcement that the governors will not abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court to its letter.
