Supreme Court judgement on LG autonomy out of order — Federal lawmaker

The lawmaker argued that “joint account” is a creation of the Nigerian constitution and, therefore, cannot be abolished unless through a constitutional amendment.

A federal lawmaker said the Supreme Court was “putting the cart before the horse” in its judgment that granted financial autonomy to local governments in Nigeria.

Nigeria’s highest court delivered a landmark judgement in July that restrained local councils run by unelected officials from receiving federal allocations.

The court further empowers the accountant-general of the federation to bypass state governments and disburse monthly federal allocations directly to the local governments, rendering the state and local government joint accounts ineffective.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, initiated the suit on behalf of the federal government.

The federal lawmaker, Mark Esset, expressed reservations about the Supreme Court judgement in Uyo on Friday at a symposium organised by the Federated Chapel of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, Akwa Ibom State Council.

Mr Esset, who represents Uyo Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, was the chairperson of the event.

Themed “A Conversation on Local Government Autonomy,” the event featured a panel discussion whose panellists included a former federal lawmaker, Onofiok Luke, a legal practitioner, Ekemini Udim, a former council chairperson of Ikono Local Government of Akwa Ibom, Itoro Columba, and the state police spokesperson, Timfon John.

In his opening remarks, the Chairperson of the Federated Chapel, Nsibiet John, told the guests that the theme was conceived to interrogate the local government autonomy and also deliberate via panel discussion if the Supreme Court ruling conflicts with the letters of the Nigerian Constitution.

Mr John, the publisher of the Ink newspaper, expressed concerns that the court granted financial autonomy without administrative autonomy, which could lead to a clash, and called for a holistic approach to local government autonomy.

Supreme Court judgement is putting the cart before the horse

In his remark at the event, Mr Esset told the people that he was speaking from a position of experience, having served first as a council chairperson of Nsit Atai Local Government and later as a member of the Akwa Ibom House of Assembly, where he chaired local government and chieftaincy affairs committee.

He argued that the state and local government joint account, which Nigeria’s highest court abolished by the judgment, is a creation of the Nigerian Constitution.

Mr Esset said the judgment does not grant full autonomy to local governments as the State Governments and the State Houses of Assembly are bound under Section 7 of the constitution to legislate and provide a roadmap for the effectiveness and functioning of the local governments.

According to the lawmaker, the concept of the joint account concerning local governments’ finances is addressed in Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as it applies to the management of financial resources between the federal, state, and local governments.

He argued that for the judgment to be impactful, the Constitution must be amended to conform to it (the judgment), a development he said was an anomaly, and that the Supreme Court put the cart before the horse in the judgment.

“When we are talking about financial autonomy, the Constitution of Nigeria, the Supreme law gives live, breadth and legal backing to the establishment of joint account.

“With the Supreme Court judgment, we are at a crossroads – is putting the cart before the horse. Section 162 (3) (of the Constitution) states that each state shall, from the amount allocated to it, pay to local government councils the amount standing to the credit of those local governments in the federation account.

“Juxtaposing the Supreme Court judgment with what the Constitution says about the joint account, we see that maintaining a joint account is a constitutional matter.

“My opinion of the Supreme Court judgment is that in interpreting the law, is that the 1999 Constitution must be amended and for any law of the land to be amended there is a procedure – the National Assembly will carry out its amendment, forward it to the state assemblies (and) two third of the state assemblies must concur with such amendment before sending it back to the National Assembly to pass before such amendment can stand and of course the President must assent to it or the National Assembly dare to veto,” he said, citing a case of NDDC Act where the National Assembly vetoed the president.

“What we are saying now is that after the Supreme Court judgment let’s amend the constitution to suit the judgment which to me is wrong. Joint account is a creation of the Constitution of Nigeria, and for it to be dropped or expunged, it must be through the amendment of the constitution.

“When this matter came up even on the floor of the Senate, there were a lot of issues and at the end, it was unanimously agreed that for this (judgment) to have an impact the Constitution must be amended – if the Constitution must be amended to give room for the judgment why then was the judgment before amending the constitution,” he queried, emphasising that the court decision was done out of order.

Soludo signs new law to deduct LG funds

Relying on Section 7 of the Nigerian Constitution, which the federal lawmaker cited in his argument, Anambra State Governor, Charles Soludo last month signed into law a bill compelling local governments in the state to remit a portion of their federal allocation into a consolidated account controlled by the state government.

Despite stiff opposition from some people who argued that the new law conflicted with the Supreme Court judgment, Mr Soludo dismissed the claim, citing Section 7 of the Nigerian constitution, which he said empowers the state legislature to make laws for the management of local government finances.

“The new law by Anambra House of Assembly is therefore consequential to give life to the Supreme Court judgment and not to undermine it,” Mr Soludo, a former Central Bank governor, argued, suggesting that the aim of the Supreme Court judgment may have been defeated.