James Ibori, a former governor of Delta, has faulted the supreme court ruling on the financial autonomy of the 774 LGAs in the country.
On Thursday, the supreme court ruled that the federal
government should henceforth pay allocations directly to local government
councils from the federation account.
The seven-member panel of justices held that state
governments have continued to abuse their powers by retaining and using the
funds meant for LGAs.
The apex court also ordered the federal government to
withhold allocations of LGAs governed by unelected officials appointed by the
governor.
Reacting to the judgment in a post on his X page, Ibori
described the ruling as an assault and a setback on true federalism, adding
that the decision contravenes section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
He said the federal government “has no right to interfere
with the administration of LGAs under any guise whatsoever”.
The former Delta governor said the ruling would have
“far-reaching” implications, such as “erosion of state autonomy” and
centralising “more power to the centre,” among others.
Advertisement
“The supreme court has dealt a severe setback on the
principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended),” Ibori wrote.
“The section expressly provides thus: ‘Any amount standing
to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal
and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such
terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly’.
“Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter:
‘Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local
Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local
Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the
Government of the State.
“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the
issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme
Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of
the 1999 Constitution.
Advertisement
“This raises questions about judicial interpretation and
whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear
constitutional language.
“Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance
of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal
intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralises more power
at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.
“State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion
of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their
internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a
federal system.
“Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial
independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can
directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this
as a tool for political leverage.
“Precedent-setting:
This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas
traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more
centralised system of government over time. That local governments must be
‘democratically elected’ goes without saying.”
The former governor added that he hopes the ruling “will be
reviewed at the earliest time possible because it clearly stands the concept of
federalism on its head”.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
Persons like Ibori should be skinned alive but here he is offering advise to the government of the day.
ReplyDelete